Storm Rider

Hi Storm Rider. I've been talking with another editor about the edit I made regarding the ancestry of Amerindians in the article Beliefs and practices of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I've provided my reasoning there, and in the version you reverted from, there were two representative papers from the scientific literature. One was a review article, that is, one which tries to summarize current state of thinking and areas of debate on Amerindian origins. The second was a highly-cited article dealing specifically with the genetic evidence. The reason I made the change I did is that it is untrue to state that there is scientific debate as to whether an ancient Jewish population immigrated to the New World. Compare the references in the version you reverted to to the references in the version you reverted from. I provided citations to important and representative works from mainstream archaeology and genetics. The references in the version you reverted to are not authoritative in the field: one is a broken link, while the other is to a post at the website for the Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship at BYU. If you can find recent (say, last 25 years or so) scientific papers published in major journals (ex. American Journal of Biology, American Journal of Human Genetics, American Journal of Archaeology) that report favorably on the hypothesis that Jewish settlement of the New World took place in the BC era, then we can write that there is a scientific debate. I have done an honest search for relevant terms in Google Scholar, and I can't find any such debate. If you want to revert back to the old version, please use the talk page of the article first. It's very frustrating to make an argument on the talk page as to why a change should be made, only to have that change be reverted without comment. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Merry Christmas Stormrider! God bless you and your family. I found this Nigerian Christmas Carol performed by the Mormon Tabernacle Choir on Youtube. Really is fabulous. click here [1] . NancyHeise ^talk 17:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Gosh it is good to hear from you! I hope things are well with you. As we enter this season where we celebrate the birth of the Jesus, my heart turns to gratitude for the love of our Father in Heaven and His willingness to send His Son into the world. He came in such profound humility and yet, none were greater than He. What a lesson this teaches us about how we should view ourselves, how we should view others, and the degree to which humility should play a part in our own character and lives. God loved us, each individual, so much that He sent His Son. I believe if even a single individual were on earth, the Savior would have still hung on the cross to save that single person. That degree of love is overwhelming when we grasp that we are that single person. May God's peace abide with you and may we serve others during this sacred time of year. -^StormRider 19:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have made a comment at Talk:Theosis that concerns the section in the article on "Non-trinitarian views". This concerns the coverage of the views of the LDS movement. I know you are knowledgeable in this area and have contributed (or attempted to contribute) to that section of the article. This is an area that I freely admit little knowledge of. I would appreciate your input on the concerns that I have raised. --Richard S (talk) 17:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

With regards to your statement that you "will revert tomorrow and will continue to do so until consensus is reached": While 3RR is a bright line, slow edit warring is still edit warring. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Verno, you know better! To edit war means a continuing process. I stopped at two reverts where John continued until he hit three. I clearly stated I stopped. John's edits are disputed and continued. Which editor showed any observance of policy? It takes two to edit war; no, it takes two to disagree. I strongly disagree with John's edits and his objectives for the article. He chose not to discuss his edits and just reverted. -^StormRider 06:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yeh... unfortunately, it takes two to have an edit-war and, if you match another edit-warrior with a revert for each offending edit, then you become an edit-warrior yourself. The only way off this crazy carousel is if one person agrees to stop and discuss. Sometimes, that means leaving the offending text in the article until a resolution is reached (via WP:DR). It's a slow and frustrating process but there is no content judge at Wikipedia so that's the only process that is available in most cases. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 00:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Well now, stupid logic remains alive. Okay boys, the difference is that one of us reverted three times. COUNT THEM. The other editor STOPPED reverting (that would be me). If you don't understand the simple principle, then DON't edit editors pages or give warnings. Why? Because you have demonstrated you are not inteliigent enough to understand the process. -^StormRider 06:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Now, now, Stormy, calm down... I believe the original comment was focused on your open threat to edit war to get your way, not on your actual actions. Look, the real question is whether or not there is a legitimate dispute (which should be resolved by calm, reasoned debate on the Talk Page) or if it's just a newbie/troll who is editing against consensus (which should be resolved by multiple editors shutting down the transgressor). If the consensus is heavily on one side, that side will tend to win because the minority side runs out of 3RR reverts faster. Now, that kind of collusion is frowned upon and collegial discussion is the gold standard to strive for but the truth is... not everyone is willing to engage in rational discussion. Anyway, to get back to the point, don't put yourself forth as the "white-hatted defender of truth on Wikipedia whose primary weapon of choice is the revert" or you'll attract reminders like the one above. In the future, invite the opposing side to discuss on the Talk Page or, if it's already been discussed to death, provide a link to the horse's corpse. Speak with a soft voice and carry a big stick. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 06:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Pseudo, look at the edit history. I specifically said let's take it to the talk page. John refused to comment and did not engage, he just continued to revert. I don't think I am riding a white horse, but I do strongly disagree with John's edits and the emphaisis he is drawing the article. Go look at his last edit on the discussion page today and tell me if you think he has any degree of neutrality in his position?

I will not move beyond two reverts in a day. I will continue to use the disucssion page in an attempt to reach consensus. I would prefer the article read as it did before John's major changes, which I reverted. You and I both know that is a common point of contention, but it is the way we handle things here. I will not revert it and ask you to do so.

I don't like poor logic being used to bend rules. Please take the time to look at the article's edit history and its discussion page and tell me where I went wrong. I am confident that I am well within our policies. -^StormRider 06:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Could you take a look at Talk:Nativity of Jesus starting around here? There's a lot to read but you once said something about how it is difficult to deal with "sacred history" in an encyclopedia article and that came back to me as I was participating in the discussion. The question is not so much about content per se as how to present the content. In a nutshell, one editor asserts that the mainstream scholarly view is that the gospel narratives of Jesus' nativity are ahistorical and fabrications. Another editor doesn't so much contest this assertion as he wishes to present the minority claims with sources. The first editor argues that these are fringe views and should not be mentioned alongside the mainstream view as it gives them undue weight. He wants to separate the article into two sections a "Historical and critical analysis section" and a "Traditional view" section. I feel that doing this is like creating a POV fork inside a single article. I'd appreciate getting your view of this question.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement#Template:LDSproject. This invitation is being extended because you have previously edited the talk page for this template, which indicates you may have some level of interest in it. 208.81.184.4 (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})Reply

You've been making some strong points that I typically agree with, but comments such as these are unnecessary and inappropriate:

• "Have you by chance ever studied logic or even undstood its definition?"
• "History may not be a field for you because it first demands neutrality and you have completely lost that ability when it comes to this topic"

Please try to cut the personal comments and focus your energies on the ideas you consider illogical or non-neutral. ...comments? ~BFizz 23:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Saw your statement here and just thought I'd note that I've been around for a couple years more than Duke53, but have about 1000 fewer edits. I give reasons for that on my user page, but nevertheless I thought I'd suggest that counting edits might be an unreliable way to judge dedication to the process. No hard feelings. alanyst ^/talk/ 13:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have not read your discussion page or the reason for your edit counts. I would agree that edit counts are not a completely reliable demonstration of an editor's committment to Wikipedia, but it is certainly a demonstation of activity. There are many facets in reviewing an editor's participation on Wikipedia besides the count of one's edits; I would submit that Duke fails each and every one of them. He is devoid of neutrality and only edits to fulfil a personal agenda. I have never seen any redeeming quality to any of his edits. -^StormRider 18:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

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) 23:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hey, Stormrider.

I just wanted to say thanks for your work at Joseph Smith. I am still a bit of a noob there and so it would be easy to just quit when trying to stand up to the pressure I have felt from John Foxe and COgden. They remind me of the person at meetings who tries to control everything because he knows Robert's Rules and uses it to leverage his position. Sure it can be done within the rules, but I personally do not see that as good ethical behavior. RR was really meant to support peaceful dialogue, not as a stick to beat people over the head with.

Anyway, thanks. Oh, any ideas on how it came to be that all the "academic" research is so negative in approach? Is it a historical context thing? Is it a problem with the "research" community being a closed and cynical group? Or is it simply that positive findings are quickly pounced upon because it would require a belief in God which no academic would be comfortable proposing?

Again thanks, it's nice to know I'm not alone in all this.--Canadiandy talk 05:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Easy, most of the "academics" that write are either critics or those that have left the church. There are very few LDS that publish outside of Church owned presses because they speak to the LDS people as a whole. The vast majority of people interested in LDS outside the Church have an axe to grind, highly critical, or virulently anti-Mormon. There are a few groups that have a feel of neutrality to them and they produce good work. Mormon History Assciation being the best of the lost and is a great organization; I belong and may not be completely objective.

A few hints; never take a reference as is. The context of the statement should be reviewed and confirmed. Also, there are a plethora of positive statements/information that can be said about Joseph Smith and they have been ignored for the most part. If your own library does not contain most of the books mentioned as references, then it is time to expand you library so that you can read them and confirm references used. When you do, you will find that your editing "permanence" goes up significantly. If I can do anything to assist please let me know. I don't have the time to devote to Wikipedia as I used to, but I still hang around. Keep up the good work! -^StormRider 13:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Having followed the Joseph Smith article I have learned a lot about how this new medium is used to push an agenda. In fact I think I could probably write an article on the subject all by myself. It would likely look like;

Using Wikipedia to Push your Agenda (for Dummies)

Step 1. Find something you disagree with and study up on any research which is critical of your subject.

Step 2. Identify yourself as neutral and an expert on the subject based on the fact you are not sympathetic with it.

Step 3. Forge all of the critical literature you have read into organized paragraphs.

Step 4. Accuse anyone who opposes your position of having a point of view. This works especially well if you use the TLA (three letter acronym) ‘POV’ over and over.

Step 5. Every now and then make a minor compromise but then follow it up with an even more negative attack on your subject.

Step 6. When anyone questions your article defend it by attributing it to the authors you have referenced. Identify them as prominent and peer-reviewed.

Step 7. If anyone persists in questioning the balance of your article, throw up a smokescreen by accusing their opinion as fringe, or better yet try and throw them off their message by accusing them of not having any referenced or peer-reviewed information to contribute.

Step 8. If anyone questions other cynical writers, come to their defense by accusing your opponent of bias.

Step 9. If anyone uses logic that opposes your position, accuse them of breaking Wiki-etiquette somewhere (even if so doing is likewise breaking wiki-etiquette). Anything underlined in blue is especially useful because it gives you both the appearance of being courteous (you are just trying to help) and obviously if the link is a Wiki rule you must be in the right because Wikipedia reigns supreme.

Step 10. Filibuster, filibuster, filibuster. Eventually your opponents will tire of this and leave in frustration giving you both the upper hand in the article and the appearance of a senior or controlling editor.

Any to add? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiandy1 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

I almost fell off my chair; great sense of humor. It is an unfortunate situation on the LDS articles. We have one fellow who proclaims to be LDS, but edits exactly like a critic. Then we have a professor from an Evangelical university who only has a single motive and that is to "tell the truth" about Mormonism and is an admitted anti-Mormon. They both have are able to devote an inordinate amount of time to editing and thus overwhelm any single editor or group of editors that are not capable of devoting a similar amount of time. The result is most of LDS-related articles only focus on controversy and are out of balance.

Regardless you are approaching it from the right perspective; it is worth laughing about, but it would drive you crazy if you allowed it to do so. -^StormRider 04:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I had thought of posting it at the discussion page, but that would have likely been used as some excuse for getting me blocked or something like that. Even though it seems very prevalent at the Joseph Smith page, it might be seen as sarcastic, though it is only meant to reflect the reality in a fun light. What do you think?--Canadiandy talk 06:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Another user with a similar name (StormRider (talk · contribs)) has been confused for you at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 6#Beliefs and practices of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. A notice meant for you was also posted at User talk:StormRider instead of here at this talk page. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 23:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

This is from Eliach's "Hasidic Tales of the Holocaust"

I will tell you another story,” said Rabbi Israel Spira to his student Baruch Bear Singer, “a story that took place in the Janowska Road Camp. Janowska was one of those camps about which, if one is to recall the events that took place during one year, one can fill pages with tales of heroism, suffering, and death. Not one book, but ten volumes. And even then, it would just be a drop in the ocean.

Many have asked me to publish the stories of Janowska in a book. I told them I am not writing new books. It would be sufficient if we read and studied the existing books. But this particular story is a duty to record. It is a mitzvah to tell it, for it is a tale about the devotion and sacrifice of a daughter of Israel.

One morning in Janowska, I was standing and sawing wood with another katzetnik (camp inmate). To humiliate us as much as possible, I was given as a partner a very short mane. As you see, thank God, I am not among the short ones. It made the wood sawing both a difficult task and a laughable sight. With each pull of the saw, my partner would stretch out and stand on the tips of his toes, and I wold bend down till my aching, swollen feet were bleeding. And the Germans stood by and watched our misery and suffering with delight.

One morning, on Hoashana Rabba, as wee were sawing wood, the wind carried in our direction piercing, tormented cries such as I had never heard before, even in Janowska hell. The desperate clamor was coming closer and closer as if the weeping was filling up the entire universe and drowning it with painful tears.

It is a children’s Aktion, little angels from the entire vicinity of Drohobycz, Borislov, Lvov, Stryj, Stanislav, and others were brought here to meet their maker.’ ” said a ktzetnik who passed by, pushing a wheelbarrow, without even glancing in our direction. I though the cries would shake the world’s foundation. We continued sawing the wood as our eyes became heavier and heavier with tears.

Suddenly, just next to us, I heard the voice of a woman. ‘ Jews have mercy upon me and give me a knife.’ In front of us was standing a woman, pale as a sheet. Only her eyes were burning with a strange fire. I thought that she wanted to commit suicide. I looked around, and since I saw no German in sight I said to her, ‘Why are you in such a rush to get to the World of Truth? We will get there sooner or later. What difference can a day make?

Dog, what do you say to that woman?" A tall young German who appeared from nowhere demanded an answer, while swinging his rubber truncheon above my head. ‘The woman asked for a knife. I explained to her that we Jews are not permitted to take our lives. For our lives are entrusted in the hands of God.’ I hastily added, ‘And I hope that you, too, will spare our lives.’ The German did not respond to my words. He turned to the woman and demanded an explanation from her. She answered curtly, ‘I asked for a knife.’

As she was talking she kept examining the German with her feverish eyes. Suddenly her eyes stopped wandering. Her gaze was fixed on the top pocket of the German’s uniform. The shape of a knife was clearly visible through the pocket. ‘Give me that pocket knife!’ she ordered the German in a commanding voice. The German, taken by surprise, handed the knife to the woman.

“She bent down and picked up something. Only then did I notice a bundle of rags on the ground near the sawdust. She unwrapped the bundle. Amidst the rags on a snow white pillow was a newborn babe, asleep. With a steady hand she opened the pocket knife and circumcised the baby. In a clear, intense voice shoe recited the blessing of the circumcision. ‘Blessed art Thou, O Lord our God, King of the Universe, who has sanctified us by thy commandments and has commanded us to perform the circumcision.’

“She straightened her back, looked up to the heavens, and said, ‘God of the Universe, you have given me a healthy child. I am returning to you a wholesome, kosher Jew.’ She walked over to the German, gave him back his blood-stained knife, and handed him her baby on his snow white pillow.

“Amidst a veil of tears, I said to myself that this mother’s circumcision will probably shake the foundations of heaven and earth. Next to Abraham on Mount Moriah, where can you find a greater act of faith this this Jewish mother’s?”

The rabbi looked at his student with tear-filled eyes and said, “Since liberation, each time I am honored at a circumcision to be a Sandak, it is my custom to tell this particular story.”

Based on a conversation of the Grand Rabbi of Bluzhov, Rabbi Israel Spira, with Baruch Singer, January 3, 1975. I [Yaffa Eliach] heard it at the rabbi’s house.

Hello! I have felt very impressed by the lack of manners and arrogance of the user you already warned in the [2]. She seems to have a special agenda on her mind and had the nerd of denying what anyone can see, that she violated the Wikipedia policies of Neutrality, as she is been editing the article in a biased way. I think she, with her childish mind, should be reported for suspenson. What do you think? Regards.85.241.229.194 (talk) 01:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello Storm Rider. I'm fairly new here and I thought I could use your help. I have a strong interest Christianity, and have studied it in college. I'm certainly not an expert, but I do enjoy learning more about it. Anyway, I have on several instances, gotten into a debate with an editor over me having an agenda because I defend Christianity on here. You seem like somebody who might be able to help (and perhaps somebody that has suffered from the same accusation), that's why I'm writing here. Currently, in addition to some debates on talk pages, I'm trying to get Catholic Answers approved as a basic source the Reliable Sources board. Thanks for any help you might be able to give. --Fictio-cedit-veritati (talk) 06:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello Fictio, thank you for your request and I apologize for my late response. I am not as active as I once was on Wikipedia and thus do not check in weekly. The Catholic Answers website should be an acceptable resource. In its mission statement it states, "Catholic Answers is an apostolate dedicated to serving Christ by bringing the fullness of Catholic truth to the world. We help good Catholics become better Catholics, bring former Catholics “home,” and lead non-Catholics into the fullness of the faith." The primary word to not is "apostolate", which is defined as "a group of people that exists for the spreading of religious doctrine". The site is not an opinion based source, but one that clarifies the doctrine of the Catholic Church. Where are you having problems? I may be able to assist in clarifying the value of this website.

Wikipedia can be very difficult for believers to contribute. It is easy to move from participation to advocacy, which will definitely cause problems. Alternatively, believers are often viewed as "defective" by our more secular editors. Peace. --^StormRider 15:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". Thank you. Light Defender (talk) 15:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hey - I'm aware that the category is for organizations, it says so in its name, but it's my opinion that adding the sub-article is more useful than adding the main article because the sub-article is the one that contains information on the church's activism, while the main article contains almost nothing on that subject. For users interested in reading about activism, Homosexuality and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is the article to go to, even though it isn't the main article for the organization. What do you think? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

For what it's worth, my thoughts can be seen here. I would be interested in other views, though. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 02:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello Storm Rider,

I have put the article on Joseph Smith up as a nominee for Featured Article Status! I think the article has come a long way, and has a very good chance of being featured this time around. I would personally appreciate it if you took a moment to review the article and vote for it (or against it, I suppose) at it's FAC.

Thanks! --Trevdna (talk) 19:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:Joseph LeBaron, Ambassador.jpg. 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 the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:Joseph LeBaron, Ambassador.jpg, which you've attributed to A VRT notice was applied over 60 day(s) ago, but no message at VRTS has been found since this tag was applied.. 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 the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello; because you commented in this discussion, I thought you might be interested in participating in this discussion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hey, Stormie! Long time no talk. A few folks are talking about working up more of the pages of Mormon women. I'm directing them to the WP:LDS project and to you. I hope you don't mind maybe helping to shepherd their effort along with other Mormopedians. Tom Haws (talk) 20:37, 11 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello Tom, I am coming late to the message. The past three months I did not visit the site. My activity on Wikipedia is almost nil. Although I would be happy to peek in ever week or so, I am not able to provide reliable, daily assistance....and it has been too long since we have talked. Cheers, --^StormRider 05:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

You participated in a Burma RM in the past so I'm informing you of another RM. I hope I didn't miss anyone. New move attempt of Burma>Myanmar Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:31, 7 August 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) 12:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply