User talk:Outerlimits

Moulder has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!

Hello Outerlimits, welcome to Wikipedia. Here are some useful links in case you haven't already found them;

• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

Angela 23:33, Sep 17, 2003 (UTC)

Many thanks, I'm mostly going to make stubs for the people who are being summarily removed from the gay page!

Make sure they're not too short though or you risk them being deleted for being "sub-stubs". Have a look at Wikipedia:Perfect stub article. Angela 23:37, Sep 17, 2003 (UTC)

For many of them the most interesting thing is that they are gay. And apparently they will be taken off the gay list if there article doesn't say they are gay. It seems silly to me! but I will try to write enough so people add on!

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia. I'm going around and deleting "gay" from the first sentence of the articles you're working on. The articles themselves are very useful, and well-written, but unless the gayness is part and parcel of one's work, then it really shouldn't jump out at one in the first sentence. RickK 02:42, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for improving the page John Paul Pitoc. :D --Gboy 06:22, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I would like to have his pic put there, but I don't know how to deal with the copyright problem. But maybe he's too cute to be put here, don't u think so?--Gboy 06:43, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Too cute for just one pic, but you're right about copyright. Impossible, really. -- Outerlimits 06:45, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Do you know anything about History of Homosexuality? Maybe you can added some content there. --Gboy 06:51, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

You should moderate your behavior instead of lashing out at those who disagree with you. Calling a person "hateful" is not the way to spread WikiLove, especially when the claim is completely untrue. Jesus is Lord! 02:31, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Thank you, Jesus. -- Outerlimits 02:32, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Hello welcome, Jesus wasnt Jesus's real name anyway. ;) 戴&#30505sv

Damn, Jesus would have been an especially valuable wikipedian, being omniscient and all... -- Outerlimits 06:11, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

LOL, thank you for bringing a sense of humor to this project. "Does anybody remember laughter?" --Uncle Ed 21:49, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

FMA

Thanks for the fresh eye on Federal Marriage Amendment. In the effort to NPOV this carticle, details slipped past me. Davodd 22:23, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)

Clive Barker

Eek.. thanks for catching that odd bit of homophobia. I hadn't noticed; after reading it, I wonder how it could've remained there as long as it did. Cheers, -- Hadal 08:29, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Timeline pages

Hi Outerlimits, I'm merging up the individual year-pages in your "gay rights timeline" -- having a page per year is only appropriate once there are ten or so entires for each year. The individual entries should be one or two lines each; detail should be relegated to actual content articles; and you should list them all on the timeline page until it starts to reach 10k or so, then you can have one page per decade, etc. +sj+ 05:29, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It's not "my" timeline, and I imagine your opinion about what its organization "should" be and what "I" "can have" will be taken into consideration when it's added to. - Outerlimits 15:55, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Many eyes, and all that

Hi Outerlimits, just wanted to say thanks for keeping an eye on this [1] guy. He's constantly inserting POV, homophobic statements into articles and the more people policing his posts, the better.--Deglr6328 16:59, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, there are lots of users peddling homophobia on Wikipedia. I correct stuff when it's particularly misleading or ill-intentioned, but there will always be a residual. Unfortunately some people think their POV is neutral, when it's clearly not. - Outerlimits 17:41, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The Wikipedia is dedicated to the insertion of points of view (POV). I hope you weren't using POV as a private slang term meaning "bias"; the Wikipedia doesn't permit the endorsement of bias as "fact". If you have questions about the site owner's NPOV policy, please ask. I'm probably its best-known spokesman. --Uncle Ed 18:00, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You've certainly frequently put yourself forward as an example of NPOV in action. I haven't heard others make the same claim about you. And thanks, I know who to ask if I have any questions. - Outerlimits 18:05, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

R. Cohen quote

That sounds like the kind of brash, open speaking style I've heard in Richard Cohen -- but could you provide a source? Otherwise, someone might consider it a sarcastic fabrication... --Uncle Ed 17:56, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Someone might if they were to assume bad faith. You'll find it in Wayne Besen, 'Anything but Straight: Unmasking the Scandals and Lies behind the Ex-Gay Myth, Harrington Park Press. ISBN 1560234458. I'm sure you'll find it an interesting read. - Outerlimits 17:59, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

1. Let's correct the article so that it's clear that the quote was cited by Besen.
2. I'll pass on buying the book, because of the mixed reviews at Amazon. Even people predisposed to accept his conclusions found his book weak or spotty.
3. How about outlining Besen's arguments or otherwise writing an encyclopedia article why Cohen is wrong about his SSAD idea? Our readers might want to hear more than "no mainstream organization endorses Cohen's views" - User:Ed Poor.

[1] we can change the article (rather than correct it) easily enough [2] you don't need to buy it to read it, and you mischaracterize the reviews, which are mainly along the lines of "wanted more lesbianism" [3] good idea. Perhaps I'll essay it if you don't get to it first. - Outerlimits 18:14, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

EP

[2][3] Proust: "My dear Charles -----, whom I used to know when I was still so young and you were nearing your grave, it is because he whom you must have regarded as a little fool has made you the hero of one of his volumes that people are beginning to speak of you again and that your name will perhaps live. If in Tissot's picture representing the balcony of the Rue Royale club, where you figure with Galliffet, Edmond Polignac and Saint-Maurice, people are always drawing attention to yourself, it is because they know that there are some traces of you in the character of Swann." (TC, I, 2) From the book "Whistler & Montesquiou: The Butterfly and Bat" de Edgar Munhall, 1995, The Frick Collection/Flammarion, p.58" I have translated the following passage about the case of Sargent and Montesquiou:

"... In June of 1885, Montesquiou was planning to return a second time to London, this time in the company of the surgeon Dr. Samuel Pozzi and the composer Prince Edmond de Polignac. Their common friend John Singer Sargent, who was then residing in Paris, wrote to Henry James in London on June 29, 1885, with this collective letter of introduction:

Dear James, I remember that you once said that an occasional Frenchman was not an unpleasurable diversion to you in London, an I have been so bold as to give a card of introduction to you for two friends of mine. One is Dr. Pozzi the man in the red gown (not always) a very brilliant creature and the other is the unique extraordinary human Montesquiou of whom you may have heard Bourget speak with bitterness, but who was to Bourget to a certain extent what Whistler is to Oscar Wilde. (take warning and do not bring them together).

They are going to spend a week in London and I fancy Montesquiou will be anxious to see as much of Rosseti's and Burne-Jones's work as he can. I have given him a card to Burne-Jones, to the Comyns Carrs (J.W. Commyns, art critic and dramatic) and to Tadema (Sir Lawrence Alma-Tadema).

"There is a letter from Edmond de Polignac to Montesquiou's cousine, then the Vicomtesse Greffulhe, postmarked Calais/Paris" and dated June 27, 1885. It indicates that the trio had already arrived in London before Sargent sent the above letter to James, and that they were settled in the Cavendish Hotel, 81 Jermyn Street.

"James rose to Sargent's bait, leaving for Montesquiou at the Cavendish Hotel..." [4] [5] Undoubtedly the best thing to come out of Yonkers, New York, “Tante Winnie”, as she became known, pursued an extraordinary career combining “dollar princess”, society hostess, discreet but active lesbian, ascetic devotee of Bach, and far-sighted patroness of composers from Stravinsky to Kurt Weill. Yet she led a lonely life after the death of her beloved (and gay) second husband, Prince Edmond de Polignac, a talented choral composer who independently discovered the octatonic scale in 1879 and whose modernistic works (admired by both Debussy and Proust) she promoted with dedication from 1901 onwards.

Thanks for your help with the Aesthetic Realism article

I don't know who you are, but I just wanted to thank you for your help in combatting the obvious bias of the AR supporters on the Aesthetic Realism page. I would help myself but the mediator requested that the disputants cease editing the article or adding to the Talk page, so I'm honoring that request. That hasn't stopped APerey from attacking the article repeatedly, of course, but there's nothing I can do about that.

It's been several days since I heard from the mediator. He asked for my position, I supplied it, and that was pretty much it. I emailed him a couple of days ago asking for status but haven't heard from him. I'm wondering how long this process is supposed to take, and whether I should seek a new mediator...

Anyway, thanks again for your help with the AR article. It's nice to have you and JamesLane trying to restore some balance to it. Michaelbluejay 19:54, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's become astonishingly clear that AR adherents can't say anything as straightforwardly honest as "Eli Siegal committed suicide" or "Eli Siegal killed himself", and are unwilling to tolerate presenting alternative points of view, as Wikipedia requires. I'm happy to press those issues, as they go to the heart of the encyclopedia's integrity. If your mediator has disappeared, there's no harm in asking for another, but you might want to drop him an other e-mail and nag a little. My impression is that mediation is pretty much in disorder at present, and the only alternative is a request for comments or a request for arbitration, though the latter is generally reserved for truly outragous behavior and is every bit as glacial as mediation. - Outerlimits 17:37, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'll try to follow up with the mediator some more when I have time. By the way, you may think that changing "committed suicide" to "died with dignity" is obfuscation, and it is, but in fact that's an improvement over their old position: Until I came on the scene as a public critic they weren't even owning up to the fact that Siegel took his life *at all*. As the NY Times reported it, when it happened the AR Foundation "refused to give the cause of death". This is similar to how they're not denying that they ever promoted a gay cure. Par for the course, I guess. I'm trying to get them to agree to a debate when I'm in NYC next month. They won't agree, but at least I will have tried. Thanks again for your help. I never had any doubt that AR people's edits would appear completely unreasonable to impartial third parties.

Hello. I thought you may be interested, and wanted to make you aware of this: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Arnold Perey - Jonathunder 02:35, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)

Your POV

You are entitled to your POV. You are allowed to express it on your personal page and on article talk pages which relate to it.

You are NOT allowed to revise articles so that they express your POV. You (and I) are not notable people, so our opinions are irrelevant to Wikipedia articles.

What you may do is find NOTABLE PEOPLE who think and feel the way you; and quote, cite, paraphrase, etc. their POVs in relavant articles.

Let's say somebody notable out there disagrees with Richard Cohen, on any or all of the following grounds:

• they don't like what Cohen says about homosexuality
• they oppose the practice of reparative therapy
• Cohen seems to be "homophobic" (whatever that means), and homophobia must be condemned whenever it rears its ugly head

So just say who opposes him and why.

Adding disparaging info - merely because you want to tarnish his reputation is not required by Wikipedia policy. And Larry Sanger would have (at best) discouraged it. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 17:37, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

With all due respect, Ed, you're not my "uncle" and you don't tell me what to do. I assume I'm receiving this message from you because you want your censorship of the Cohen article to stand. You converted a reasonable article into a one-sided one, and that's not acceptable. I don't want to "tarnish" anyone's reputation. And I don't want you to whitewash it, either. - Outerlimits 22:56, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

AR

I hope that you are not holding back editing until the page protection comes down. The aim is to get to a single version which will be moderately acceptable to both the pro and anti AR sides. In the recent past there have been a long stream of edits that go in circles. I'm not blaming you for that at all, but if you participate in drafting a good NPOV article that other editors also sign off on then that would really help the process of getting to a stable article. Thanks, -Willmcw 20:24, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

I find it very confusing to edit an article on a talk page. The protection was to force anonymous AR editors to talk rather than revert. But now talk on the talk page is being regarded as misplaced. I think it a better idea that the protection be removed, having accomplished what it was for, and that the article be placed on the article page, leaving the talk page available for actual talk. Failing that, I'll try to correct some of the versions-on-the-talk-page(s)'s grosser errors, but having three versions of an article is confusing, not helpful. - Outerlimits

There's only one version that we're editing. Thanks for your patience. Note that I've moved the Obejections/Responses up to the "Change" section. The Objections almost all concern the "change from homosexuality" matter, so it made no sense to split it all out and put it at the end (especially with a response four times longer). Cheers, -Willmcw 20:43, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Except that Bluejay's objection and AR's response seems to concern the word "cure" rather than the basic claim of "change", and that most other people take objection not to the word "cure" but to the idea that "AR makes ex-gays". But we'll see what can be made of a conglomerated section. - Outerlimits 20:48, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

P.S. If the goal is a stable version, Bluejay really needs to be asked back (after having been told not to edit by a mediator), or it will become instantly unstable the minute he comes back, or the minute someone who respresents his contentions happens upon it. - Outerlimits 20:50, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree that Bluejay should be involved. I'll leave a note on his talk page inviting him in. One message from a mediator asks both he and Aperey to "disengage". Not everyone followed the advice equally. If Bluejay does not return for any reaosn, I've found this draft that he completed which has substantial criticisms not now included in the article.Talk:Aesthetic Realism/Version from michaelbluejay Some of the sourcing is weak, but it is a good map of his concerns. Cheers, -Willmcw 21:04, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Photo

Would you please stop adding that photo (which a vandal uploaded, overwriting another photo)? It's not even properly sourced as it is probably from the ISNA website [6] and it is not clear who is in that photo. I would have to check the website to verify who exactly it is supposed to be depicting. In the meantime, please remove it. SouthernComfort 02:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Aside from the overwrite issue (IMO, it was deliberate vandalism because I believe he did to two original photos), I'm not sure if ISNA's content is public domain or fair use. Of course I don't "like" the photo (it's a hanging for heavens sake), but I am not against its inclusion so long as it is properly sourced and is fair use. I have to check the specific article in question to make sure the journalist linked above is not mistaking those two for others (lots of executions in Iran). SouthernComfort 03:08, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Yet you've removed the photo before checking? In any case, I've pointed you to a place where other photos of the executions are available, if you prefer them. - Outerlimits 03:13, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Batman and Robin up in a tree

Hey, thanks for the links. I've actually come across that site before, but not the BBC article. -Seth Mahoney 16:28, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks

You reverted a lot of my work on AIDS in the United States, but I did not understand your edit summary. Nor did I glean anything from your remarks on the article's talk page.

Perhaps I was distracted by your personal remarks, such as:

• "you think you have something to add to any page touching on the subject of your bete noir, homosexuality"
• "your changes rarely improve any of the articles"
• "you are uninformed about measures which have been proven to decrease HIV transmission"

I would rather you spent less time talking about me and more time talking about the article. Specifically, why did you reverted my changes? And what is the best way to discuss the "gay disease" perception? Uncle Ed 20:20, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Well, Ed, when your changes to articles are driven by personal agenda rather than by any apparent deficiencies in the articles themselves, your agenda necessarily becomes part of the conversation. The fact that you have a long history of splitting material you disapprove of out of gay-related articles and stowing it under some horribly lopsided point-of-view title can't be ignored: it's clearly pertinent, as it's an objectionable "solution", largely to "problems" only you yourself perceive. These are not comments about your "person", but about your behavior on Wikipedia. Now, specifically: [1] you seem to have a problem with the word "homophobia". Its meaning is quite clear: the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary defines it as "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals". If it's good enough for Merriam-Webster, it ought to be good enough for you. It doesn't matter that Ed Poor -or any other Wikipedian- would formulate a different definition based on the word's etymology: words often don't mean exactly what people might infer from their etymology. Get over it. Leave it alone. Time to stop flogging this particular dead horse. [2] Deletion of material you -and only you- disapprove of is not an appropriate first step in achieving NPOV. If you think something is worded unfairly, re-word it. If you think a viewpoint is not covered that needs to be, add that coverage. If it's a viewpoint held by a significant amount of people, it will remain. But don't delete things simply because they annoy you or because you disagree with them. [3] You ask whether condoms prevent the transmission of HIV. They do. If you don't know that, you need to research it before discussing it in articles. The fact that you don't know that something is true doesn't make it false. [4] Your vendetta against gay-related content -and you were on quite a blitz- seems a result of you dividing the world into two opposed camps. You see everything that reflects the humanity of gay men and women as something that is "advocated" by "gay activists". It's a distorted picture of reality, and you shouldn't be writing and editing articles into compliance with such a distorted point of view. The world is a more nuanced place; it's not all black and white. [5] The best way to discuss the fact that AIDS was initially misperceived and stigmatized as a "gay disease" is pretty much the way the article did it before you went near it. - Outerlimits 17:23, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Math

Actually, 3 is one-fourth of 12, not one-third. No, I don't have a source for that. ;) Cheers, -Willmcw 05:29, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Silly me. I forgot to convert from base 7. - Outerlimits 22:19, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

This is a warning about the vandalism which you are doing in the Aesthetic Realism article. By vandalism I mean the promulgation of an agenda by writing misinformation. After this warning, I understand I can ask for assistance if the vandalism continues.--Aperey 21:09, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

You can ask for assistance any time at all. Mischaracterizing our conflict over content as vandalism won't aid you in any way, and calling information "misinformation" will also not enhance your credibility. - Outerlimits 21:41, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Aperey, please see wikipedia:vandalism for the definition we use around here. In this context, "vandalism" means blanking a page, adding gibberish, or grafitti. POV differences are not vandalism. Calling legitimate edits with which you disagree "vandalism" is not good wikiquette and reflects poorly on those making the accusation. -Willmcw 22:48, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Not to worry

Everybody's cool. -Willmcw 09:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Outerlimits, thanks for your speedy articles for individuals I deleted on the List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people. I greatly appreciate it. Not so long ago it was decided that anyone appearing in red, with no Wiki bio would be deleted in order to prevent people from randomly placing people on the list with no confirmation. So, I had been deleting those with no bios and will continue to do so. Gladys Bentley was appearing in red on the list, so that is why she was deleted by me. Thanks again! ExRat 11:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Removing false information from the Wikipedia is a good thing. Removing true information from Wikipedia is a bad thing. I think it is a mistake to think removing something without bothering to ascertain whether it is true or false is helpful. When someone makes a deletion that is egregiously wrong or obviously uninformed, I am happy to rectify their mistake. I am sure you mean well, but I think your time would be better spent in learning what is true and what is false (rather than deciding that based on the color of a link), adding supporting materials when it is true, and deleting when it is false. Wikipedia cannot be the only reference material for a Wikipedia article. Internal consistency and truth are not closely related. - Outerlimits 00:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Activity on the AR mediation page

Thought I'd give you a heads up that there's some activity on the AR mediation page. (Be sure to check the history to see what Perey deleted.) But then again, since you're really me, why do I need to tell you this? Michaelbluejay 21:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, but I haven't volunteered for this mission. I think it's likely to be unproductive. (How could it be productive, starting with Samivel pretending he was someone other than he is? Mediation requires good faith, and a dedication to producing a factual article.) Looking at the mediation page, I think it would be a mistake to enter a mediation restricted only to the parts of the article Samivel wants to change. I would certainly never enter into such a mediation! And his indiscriminate deletion of all the facts you added means he's intent on only having his "facts". Aesthetic Realism receives more than due deference in the present article: if Samivel is intent on upsetting that balance, he should have to open up the whole can of worms, not just the two paragraphs he likes least. Were I him, I'd think twice about doing so. - Outerlimits 21:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Gay Rights

(xposted to the article's talk page) Homosexuality as a mental illness is still debated by opponents of gay rights. On NARTH's website, they assert (http://www.narth.com/docs/schoenewolf2.html): Another example of the way the Gay Rights Movement utilized Marxist tactics was how it forced the American Psychiatric Association to normalize homosexuality. Dr. Charles Socarides reports in Homosexuality: A Freedom Too Far (1995) how the Gay Rights Movement, through a series of political maneuvers, intimidated the APA in to taking homosexuality off the DSM category of sexual disorders. Here again were the usual elements of political correctness: The American Psychiatric Association was now the evil oppressor and gays were the innocent victims who needed to take arms against this modern evil and conquer it.

As for the DSM II/III/IV issue: (http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/138/2/210) "In 1973 homosexuality per se was removed from the DSM-II classification of mental disorders and replaced by the category Sexual Orientation Disturbance. This represented a compromise between the view that preferential homosexuality is invariably a mental disorder and the view that it is merely a normal sexual variant. While the 1973 DSM-II controversy was highly public, more recently a related but less public controversy involved what became the DSM-III category of Ego-dystonic Homosexuality."

Voyager640 22:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

- replied there. - Outerlimits 01:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

List of Gay, lesbian, and bisexual people

Keep up the good work and don't let the 'phobes (and we know who they are) keep us down or off. Carlossuarez46 19:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't it Christ who said, "The homophobes will be with you always?" - Outerlimits 20:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Should've kept my bible. LOL Carlossuarez46 22:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see Lulu and the others as "phobes". The problem is that notablity (and tacitly WP:V and WP:NOR) is the only that keeps the list from being millions of names long. The list should be limited to the most notable people who are in that livestyle. Comments like '"Zero tolerance" is exactly the right word here, and it's apparently zero tolerance for gays. There's a reason this list was "chosen", and it's probably an ugly one' and others only distance yourself from reason and provoke others (this might explain Lulu's increasing snappiness, such as accusing you of "wanting" to violate policy.

Please understand that admins here have to sort through a lot cruft and BS, and many (myself included) feel that standards are too low, or that policy is not enforced enough. Enforcing notablity and policy is not the same a censoring out mentioning of gay people. Please assume good faith on the part of others before assuming bigotry on their part.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 01:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Bringing a coterie of "straight boys" in to "enforce" standards on a gay list has unfortunate overtones that Lulu apparently doesn't want to acknowledge. And his breaking of the article into fragments has had the effect of stopping what was an ongoing process of improving citation. The only "work" done on the list since its dissection has been to remove names: there has been no effort at providing cites. - Outerlimits 00:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

bad joke of the week

• Ted Allen, American food and wine guru on Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. --> ^{[citation needed]} <--

Gorgidas

Hello, Outerlimits. Do you have references for the interesting article you started, Gorgidas? --FloNight 23:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It's a little peculiar to me that an article that cites Plutarch and Plato should be characterized as unreferenced! - Outerlimits 01:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Moved part of your post."Category:Pederasty" category has been added. I certainly will not be editing the article as long at that incorrect tag remains: the Theban Band contained pairs of equal lovers, not necessarily the stereotypical adult/child pairs. One reference would be "The Theban Sacred Band," The Ancient World XXIII.2 (1992) 3-19, but I have not consulted it. - Outerlimits 01:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I was looking at articles in Category:Pederasty, mostly looking for the incorrect label for living people. Trying to kill two birds with one stone, I looked for unsourced articles, too. I'm sorry I missed the intext citation. I'm going to remove the Pederasty tag, since it doesn't seem right to you. Regards, --FloNight 02:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Putting up with newbies. (g)

Just me saying thanks for putting up with my weird questions over on Talk:University of the Cumberlands with patience. I promise I'm not as dense as I seem some days. :D

Kylu t 06:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

LGBT rights in Iran

Hi, I've left a comment on the talk page. Cheers, Khoikhoi 03:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:David Burtka.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:David Burtka.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. 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:Fair use, 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 uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 00:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:David Burtka.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:David Burtka.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. —Angr 00:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Your claim that it's replaceable is simply wrong, and could only be correct if you knew that there was a public domain image of David Burtka. There are none. You have assumed that there are, and it's difficult to know why. There are only publicity photos, such as the one you want to delete. If you'd just delete it instead of also making that false claim, it would be considerably less offensive. - Outerlimits 00:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject LGBT studies

Thought you might be interested in WP:LGBT? Take a look around, and if you are interested, sign up? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:CabaretNeilPHarris.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:CabaretNeilPHarris.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 18:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni

Hi Outerlimits,

I saw your recent edits to Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni and thank you for your input. User:ThePowerofTruth (aka User:LGBTRights123) continues to insert a POV agenda into the article. I have on several occasions pointed out their inaccuracies, lack of balance and seemingly purposeful distortion of facts, however they continue. I am not quite sure how to go about resolving this as I haven't ever encountered this before. Any suggestions? Thanks so much, ExRat (talk) 22:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Max_von_Essen.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Max_von_Essen.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 20:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

No thanks. Your first criterion is designed to prevent fair use within Wikipedia. It's disingenuous of you to suggest that you want to retain the photo. - Outerlimits (talk) 02:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Pippin00.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Pippin00.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 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 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 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rettetast (talk) 15:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Clearly you don't read responses to your notes! The fact that you have added new requirements for photos (since this one was uploaded) using new templates (created since this one was uploaded) has nothing to do with me. If you want a fair use rationale, you can add one yourself; if you find it easier to delete content from Wikipedia than to supply fair use rationales, I suppose you will do as you please. - Outerlimits (talk) 18:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Jesse Helms

Hi, progress is once again being made and I recall you having an interest in his AIDS legacy. If you're willing please consider adding a "AIDS" section under the LGBT one as I left it off aluding to his change in AIDS thinking. Banjeboi 23:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me have a look at how the article is structured now and see if I can be of any use. - Outerlimits (talk) 04:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Re:translation

I don't know French, but I asked Lilyu to translate. I reworded and clarified a bit:

Boni de Castellane converted to homosexuality, after he was 50 years old, Proust told me. The homosexuals were quite proud that they had recruited such a grand seductor of women.

Hope this helps! Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 02:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Pope and....homosexuality!!!!!!!

Hello there!

I have made some edits to the homosexuality section of Pope Benedict XVI's article, hopefully to balance it out abit and not give undue weight to the 2008 speech that never was. As you possibly know Benedict/Ratzinger's opposition to Homosexuality goes way back to his time as Prefect of the CDF and hopefully by reorganising the paragraph and including the On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons letter I've managed to reflect that a bit better. He has made many many pronouncements on this issue though as Pope- the 2008 thing dominates that section and, considering he never even mentioned homosexuality its a little misleading- so please don't be dismayed if in the near future the 2008-speech is shrank a little and some of il Papa's real speeches and declarations on homosexuality are put in. Also, try not to get too angry with the other editors on that page- AGF! Gavin (talk) 12:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

If anything remains good luck. Everytime negative pope info is brought in it magically is expelled or vectored away to less prominent articles. It may be a waste of time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.6.251 (talk) 03:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Gavin, your edits are fine, and certainly an improvement over the actions of those who decided it would be better to ignore the pope's antigay positions and speeches. I'm not angry at them, but neither will I let this sort of whitewashing stand. The assumption of good faith, by the way, goes out the window when bad faith has been demonstrated... -Outerlimits (talk) 05:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Jack Wrangler

hello. i replaced the dates for wrangler's marriage in the infobox. while it may connote 'lifespan' when in the body of the article, when it appears in the infobox with 'spouse', it denotes dates of marriage. ref here for example. --emerson7 18:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Such dates are not "customary" and if they were, that custom would have to change. Using a range of dates after a person's name will always be taken by some people as indicating life-span; to avoid misleading them, we cannot use such a range to indicate the duration of a marriage. We are here to inform, not mislead. Your help in this task would be appreciated. - Outerlimits (talk) 19:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

April 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jack Wrangler. 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. emerson7 21:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, you may not know that Wikipedia has a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Using different styles throughout the encyclopedia, as you did in Jack Wrangler, makes it harder to read. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. emerson7 21:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been welcome here for several years thank you, long enough to know that templating the regulars is considered rude, and long enough to know that if I'm "edit warring", you are too. - Outerlimits (talk) 06:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

indeed...apparently i misinterpreted your lack of regard for policy and convention as inexperience. you should then really know better. --emerson7 22:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should become acquainted with the facts of a situation before acting on it, then, and perhaps you might want to brush up on the no personal attacks policy. And perhaps you should stop misrepresenting your opinion about what should be done as "policy and convention". - Outerlimits (talk) 17:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

May 2009

I don't know what this edit summary was all about, but there is no need for that here. - Schrandit (talk) 23:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

It means that people should add factual information to articles, not just make up shit (like "same-sex marriage activists") because it fits their ideologies. Among other things, using actual facts avoids the opportunity for people to bias articles by labelling people according to the editors beliefs instead of actually providing information. I imagine that there will be no need for such comments when people stop making shit up. - Outerlimits (talk) 00:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Its highly reasonable to take a man who purchased a website and developed an internet campaign in favor of same-sex marriage and label him a same-sex marriage activist. There is no reason not to assume good faith toward whichever editor included that description and there is no reason to leave and edit summary like that. - Schrandit (talk) 07:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, labelling is POV-pushing, and pretty clearly in bad faith when it's based on nothing but your personal intuition. Feel free to discuss your desire to label the man on the talk page of the article in question, where it belongs. - Outerlimits (talk) 07:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

AGF

You repeatedly, hopefully inadvertently, misrepresented me and insinuated bad faith against me. I have never dealt with such behavior, and was worried I hadn't handled it well, so I sought the input of two people who had participated previously in that article's discussion, one with a perspective likely to be similar to mine, and one with a perspective likely to be different from mine. Please be more careful. Best, Teaforthetillerman (talk) 16:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks, it always adds a nice homey Christian touch when someone's first note is vaguely threatening. For the record, you handled your misperceptions egregiously. Should you require further dispute resolution, I'll be more than happy to introduce you to the way it's actually supposed to be done here. - Outerlimits (talk) 09:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

What's threatening here? It is incredible that in every post you misread or misrepresent me... Teaforthetillerman (talk) 20:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

There's an implied "or else" in everything you've written here. What I find incredible is that you blame everyone but yourself for the fact that what you have written is taken in the way that it is. - Outerlimits (talk) 21:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you can possibly mean "implied"; you might perceive an insinuated "or else" in what I've written, but there's not. (Or else what? Do I have some power I'm unaware of to get rid of or punish rude folks?) I'm certainly to blame if I'm being unclear, but I don't feel like you've pointed out places where I lack clarity (this would help me). In many places you just say that I've said things I haven't. I'm not sure how I can blame myself for words put in my mouth, which is what this feels like to me, especially since you couch your misreadings as if they're objective fact instead of your perception of what I've said. AGF, if I understand it right, means that when I explain what I mean, you assume I'm explaining in good faith that this is what I mean. Teaforthetillerman 00:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teaforthetillerman (talk • contribs)

AGF means good faith is assumed before bad faith is manifested. Once bad faith is manifested, it is perfectly reasonable—and permissible—to take cognizance of it. Discussing people behind their backs: bad faith. Spamming talk pages with accusations against someone without even bothering to talk to that person: bad faith. Contacting the subjects of articles off-Wiki: bad faith. Contesting descriptions that you know perfectly well are accurate: bad faith. - Outerlimits (talk) 11:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

This may be the source of the misunderstanding; in common usage, "bad faith" means dishonesty, and that is how I've been using it. Although you misrepresent me again in this comment, most of your attacks would not constitute bad faith under that definition, even were they true. The last accusation, of course (that you know my subjective perception of the disputed labels), is the perfect example of assumed bad faith. I'll let you have the last word, since it's fruitless to discuss this when you continue to insist on assuming bad faith. (I would like to know, though, whether you can point me to a guideline stating that openly/forthrightly contacting the subject of an article is "bad faith" in whatever sense you're using the term? I just read through the list of guidelines and could not figure out what you're talking about.) Teaforthetillerman (talk) 19:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

By "your attacks" I mean "the things of which you accuse me in your last comment." I think I was unclear in that sentence. Teaforthetillerman (talk) 21:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I should add that I was indeed remiss in responding to your attacks on the NOM discussion page, rather than your talk page; as I mentioned, this was due to my unfamiliarity with guidelines for dealing with incivility. I apologize for that mistake. Teaforthetillerman (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I agree that further discourse with you is unlikely to have much effect; you can call that an attack too, if you wish. - Outerlimits (talk) 04:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

NOM discussion

I appreciate your enthusiasm on the NOM discussion, but can I suggest you ratchet back the tone a bit on your responses to T4? If not for reasons of WP:AGF and WP:CIVILITY, then simply for strategy - the person shouting that George Washington was the first president can lose the debate to the person calmly asserting that George Jefferson was. - Nat Gertler (talk) 03:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say I was enthusiastic about that discussion; rather I was regretfully addressing Maggie Gallagher's agent's COI edits. It's a task I would happily leave in your capable hands. - Outerlimits (talk) 03:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you could stop the bad-faith insinuations. Teaforthetillerman (talk) 05:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you would stop the bad-faith actions. Are you here because you're dedicated to creating an encyclopedia, or are you here as Maggie Gallagher's handmaiden? I think we have to rely on your actions rather than your words for the answer. - Outerlimits (talk) 03:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why you keep escalating your personal attacks. Here you go beyond assuming bad faith to accusing me, for no stated reason, of having a COI. Do you just have no interest in civility? This is bizarre. I am in fact here because I'm dedicated to improving the encyclopedia. To me, that's the only reason to endure this perpetually rude behavior. Teaforthetillerman (talk) 07:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey Bro

Just wanted to say hi. I noticed that you did some edits on NOM, I added the section about the education fund. I would like if yu could weigh in on a few topics. One is an editor with ties to "Focus on the Family" has nominated the category for Hate Groups to be deleted because they think it is pejorative. The other thing is I have created a Category called "opposes LGBT rights" which is being challenged as pejorative also. The discussion for "Opposes LGBT Rights" is on the Category page. You can see the Hate group discussion on the LGBT projects discussion page with link.--DCX (talk) 07:04, 12 April2010(UTC)

here is another category up for deletion that I would appreciate your opinion on

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_April_12#Category:LGBT_rights_opposition --DCX (talk) 23:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution Process

Hello, Outerlimits. I've noticed that you have taken a step in the Dispute Resolution Process by posting in WQA. Please note that it is recommended that you advise the other party of your complaint filing so that they are aware of it, and so that they have a chance to respond.

If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page.

Writing the gay cure section of the AR article now

Hello, and sorry to trouble you here, but I wanted to make sure that you didn't miss that we're currently working on the Homosexuality section of the Aesthetic Realism article, since I thought you would probably want to be involved. Here's the current draft. I posted my own rewrite of the section, though I expect it to have been reverted or neutered by the time you see it. Thanks, MichaelBluejay (talk) 10:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

WWN and BLP

Hi, a user requested I removed the excerpt from the Weekly World News. Since WP:BLP requires that even on talk pages all controversial material about living people be sourced to an RS, I did remove it, and left a note inside your comment. Feel free to replace my note with your own, or replace the information with a source that meets RS. Ocaasi ^c 03:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

"A user"? As you suggested, I have replaced your note, which went beyond eliminating BLP to eliminating information about press treatment of AR claims, with the quotation stripped of names, which effectively takes it out of the BLP realm. - Outerlimits (talk) 15:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, a user contacted me through email. Someone I respect who works on that page. If you'd like to know who the user was, i'll just check if it's appropriate to disclose and get back to you. It's pretty irrelevant who since the general policy reading is IMO accurate. I'm still not sure your replacement is great, since it's now just a censored quote about an AR member from WWN. Without the name it's less of a BLP issue, but since it's from WWN it doesn't do much for the discussion either way. Good sources are needed very much, and I think we have many of them already. Have you looked at the talk subpages for sources yet? They're very comprehensive. Ocaasi ^c 18:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Please, I would prefer that you not to betray her confidence. She's been trying to get sources she deems insufficiently adulatory of AR removed from talk pages in more than one place, so though anonymous she's hardly mysterious. However, anonymously requesting a third party to intervene without first broaching the subject with me is pretty much the opposite of forthright, as is attempting to use BLP to get content censored when the issue is pretty clearly not an actual BLP concern. Frankly such actions wouldn't be something that most people would respect. As for my talk page comment, without a name, there's no biographical content, and therefore absolutely no BLP issue. And of course, WWN is a perfectly reliable source for what WWN said, which was the point of the quotation (the words used by the press) rather than the name (for which reliable sources are, it might be added, available in abundance; I agree that if the person in question now prefers to distance himself from his former statements, it's polite to do so, especially if he does so consistently and has them removed from current AR-run web pages—which could easily be cited.) - Outerlimits (talk) 19:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I respect the efforts to keep the page free of personal attacks or organizational attacks. Despite your and MBJ's work in this area, the antagonism it creates is very detrimental to actually getting things done (no less detrimental than AR members' obfuscation, but nonetheless). So I take it in good faith that the talk page should be focused on what can actually be used to improve the article, and I let the user know that were it an RS that reflected poorly on an AR member, that I would not remove it.

I still think you're parsing past the intent as well as the letter of WP:BLP, WP:SOURCES, and WP:TALK. The issue is not whether WWN is a source for what it says, which any source is, but whether it is a source for "words used by the press". Since WWN is not considered a reliable press source, it is only a source for what WWN said, and not reflective of what any other press source said. "Press" implies reliable. WWN is not reliable and WWN is not press; it's entertainment semi-fiction journalism by most standards. This is a problem specific to WWN and other tabloid publications with extremely poor reliability reputations and has nothing to do with AR or covering up criticisms of AR. Have you seen the sources page? It's loaded with criticisms from RS. Ocaasi ^c 19:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Aesthetic Realism

Hello, Outerlimits. I note that you have worked on the Aesthetic Realism article in the past. If you can find the time, I would appreciate it if you could look at the article again. I recently made a series of edits to it, most of which should have been quite uncontroversial. All of them, including basic corrections to grammar and punctuation, were reverted by LoreMariano, simply because they weren't discussed beforehand (I had not previously been aware that correcting grammar required prior discussion and negotiation). Could you please comment on the talk page? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Aesthetic Realism". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 18:28, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

A minor change to DRN

Hi there, you're getting this message as you are involved in a case at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard which is currently open. Today DRN has undergone a big move resulting in individual cases on subpages as opposed to all the content on one page. This is to inform you that your case is now back on the DRN board and you will be able to 'watch' the subpage it's located on. Thanks, Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 13:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Outerlimits. 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)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Outerlimits. 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)