User talk:Synchronism/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Synchronism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Re: Please help

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I left a note on Michael's talk page, and will keep an eye on the situation. Regards, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again, Synchronism (talk) 20:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Request

Latest comment: 15 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion

In this edit in April you said you have an idea of the puppetmaster behind User:Kaiwhkahaere. A sockpuppet investigation related to the sock has been opened at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Michael93555. If you have any additional evidence, please add it to the case. Thank you. Shubinator (talk) 16:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

He's using a proxy unfortunately. Shubinator (talk) 21:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

They're not open proxies are they? Synchronism (talk) 22:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't know. I don't think a closed proxy would allow people to mess around like he's doing. I think User:OverlordQ does open proxy stuff like detecting and blocking; maybe ask him. Shubinator (talk) 22:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

"Sigh" is the word. Not much more can really be done.Synchronism (talk) 22:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies might be able to help. But he'd just keep switching around. It might be best to ignore him; like the neighborhood bully, he'll get tired eventually. Shubinator (talk) 22:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I greatly appreciate your advice and help, I'll look into both possibilites.Synchronism (talk) 23:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah excellent, the rangeblock kicked in. Shubinator (talk) 00:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

That is good news.Synchronism (talk) 04:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Suspicious highway number edit in Albuquerque, New Mexico

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

An IP editor has (partially) changed Albuquerque, New Mexico to say that the northern portion of Coors Blvd. is State Highway 447 instead of State Highway 47 (diff). You had originally added the Highway 47 part. However, according to my maps, neither is correct: it should be State Highway 448. State Highway 47 is Broadway in the south and 2nd Street in the north. Could you take a look at this and straighten it out? Thanks. --Uncia (talk) 02:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Gladly. Goolgemaps has Coors south of I-40 labeled as 45, and Broadway as it should 47. It should be 448 for north Coors as your maps have it. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I added quite a bit of material to the article around October[1], and I guess misread whatever map I used when describing that. I'll look over the rest of the section for similar errors, Synchronism (talk) 03:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Orthographies and dyslexia/Sandbox.

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Synchronism,

Thank you for sorting out the sandbox.

How should i go about creating any future sandboxes so that i do not make the same mistake again, can you advise dolfrog (talk) 05:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Unless you have a policy-reinforced reason to put it elsewhere, put it in your own WP:userspace. You need to generate a redlink for it which you click and edit. You can search for it and the results will display a redlink, or you can type the page you are starting like this, User:Dolfrog/Sandbox-2. I hope that helps,Synchronism (talk) 05:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I read your comments...

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents - User:Will_Beback_.28Administrator.29 .

I don't have the ability to check and see who every IP is coming from, so I must assume a modicum of good faith when I am dealing with what are- to me- new users. And in this particular case, I felt (and still do) that this annonymous editor is EXACTLY the kind of editor that could be turned into a productive contributor, if they were "taken into hand" so to speak. That is, treated with some patience and a little kindness.

I understand that Will's actions were within his permit. Additionally, I feel a little perplexed that you should feel he needed a defense of his actions. Of course he has the right to protect an article if he felt it was in need of protection. No one was disputing that. I merely wished to take a less "strident" tone with the IP user. And that anonymous editor has yet to respond to my offer to help, so the point may be moot. But it would have been remiss on my part to not extend the offer to help.

I'm not prepared to point any fingers, because I feel the atmosphere of overall incivility has gradually found a way to creep into the manner that a seeming preponderance of established editors/admins treat with the Noob's in the more recent past. It can be very satisfying, however, to "turn" a problematic editor towrd "The Light" as it were, and see them become decent contributors to the project. With young people in particular, it can be a valuable asset for them to learn the co-operation that is necessary to partake in a project such as the one we have all endeavoured to participate within. Regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 17:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I see that you no longer feel as hopeful though about this user though[2] ("Good call!" to me too, right?). I'm glad that steps are being taken to reduce any "clitoral damage" that may result from this. I treated some very silly edits as good faith attempts before I caught on to this user's pathology.

I am also a fan of turning the other cheek and turning a new leaf. In general it's a good idea to consider the edits rather than the status of the person that makes them, that's how I first encountered the user. I see no deficit of insight or good faith on your part; conspicuousness is in the eye of the beholder.

The user has trolled and harassed me, I had felt defenseless about that, and I didn't want anyone else to experience that so I spoke up. When I said "leave Will alone" I was talking to the user, not you. I stand by my action. What was happening really was a charade, the user made the gestures of a content dispute, when really they were evading a justified block and attempting to cause disruption, playing a game. The good-faith assumption without sleuthing was to treat it as a content dispute.Synchronism (talk) 19:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

New conversation about issue with the dyslexia articles

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi, there.

I noticed that you have made changes to the dyslexia article in the not-too-distant past and would like to solicit your input.

I just started a new conversation on the Wikiproject dyslexia talk page about our attempt to provide a worldwide view in these articles. We could use as many people providing feedback as possible. Please read and respond, if you can.

Thanks!

Rosmoran (talk) 22:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

ITE District 6 - Speed Limits - When and why the 85th percentile, how it relates to safety, enforcement and our laws.

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Unique Application of Federal Supremacy; few know that a Speed Limit Sign is a federal device and most installations are not compliant with governing law. Compare our federal law to the ad hock system documented here, in Nation that requires one system and no two are the same in practices or the exercise of police powers. Speed Limit Sign (R2-1): Not only is the shape, size, color, placement, hardware, reflective backing quality and the breakaway post design set by federal regulations, the practices and procedures to determine the safety value of the number on the sign and the exercise of police powers thereof SHALL also be fact based and uniformly applied regardless of state lines, entity type or classification on any public or private roadway, pedestrian facility or bikeway open to the public within the U.S. and its territories. Setting speed limits is one of those hot button issues where the science and our practices couldn’t be more at odds. Regardless of the widely held myths that permeate this issue, the job of an engineer is to make our road safer applying their professions empirical body of knowledge. Safety can only be achieved when the practices are based on fact. When and how to determine the 85th percentile speed is only the starting point. The “Why the 85th percentile” will be an enlightening tool for the practitioner that will make us all safer. We cover everything from the Montana Paradox when speed limits where removed altogether, urban freeways and surface streets and how it relates to the MUTCD, our laws and what speed limits can and cannot do. Reinforcing the engineering axiom that roadway design and environment determine safety and travel speeds, not the number on the sign. With advent of automated enforcement, some jurisdictions are now writing more that 2 citations a year per licensed driver therefore it’s an imperative we make sure that the foundations of the enforcement action, be it red light or speed camera, is based on best practices, not the absence of them. Basic Tenets of Speed Laws: Laws protect the public by regulating unreasonable or unsafe actions. Actions of a reasonable person should be legal. Most people drive in a safe and reasonable manner. Laws cannot be effectively enforced without the public consent and voluntary compliance. http://www.bhspi.org/documents/BHSPI_ITE6_Denver090715f.pdf When you look at the the requirements of the law and enforcement we have not found a single entity in the US in conformance. Here is how it was argued in a California court... if read it will provide a much better understanding of US laws regarding traffic control. http://www.bhspi.org/files/CA_09_cooper_pleadingf.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdornsife (talk • contribs) 13:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

thank you for maths correction

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

You made the change back to the Alamogordo article. Thank you. My arithmetic is not so good so I did not see that the percentages added up to more than 100%. It seems that there are Hispanic whites and non-hispanic whites. I don't think there are too many Hispanic Asians though and no Hispanic Martians (or non-Hispanic Martians or Native American Martians). Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Have you ever heard of Alberto Fujimori? I assure you there are Asian Hispanics (Asian Latin American. I'm sure you have heard of the Phillipines. The census questions that generate those statistics are like this: What is your race? (Hispanic is not an option, "other" is however). What is your ethnicity? (White is not an option). Here is a decent article on the subject: Race and ethnicity in the United States Census.—Synchronism (talk) 11:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Albuquerque history/cultural timeline info

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

After reading your comments on Albuquerque, I thought you might enjoy browsing http://tommilesabq.com

This is a blog I put up recently covering aspects of a 600 year historical and cultural timeline I created for the Tricentennial Celebration in 2006. The timeline has been installed in the east wing of the Convention Center since April 2006, and a sister copy installed at the airport in 2008. A YouTube video "5 Perspectives on Albuquerque" describing the timeline in detail is linked to the blog.

Hoping you find this of interest,

98.230.194.12 (talk) 18:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)Tom Miles, Albuquerque

Thank you, I like blogs about Albuquerque.Synchronism (talk) 09:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Chili Line DYK

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Great job expanding the article! I like your hook, and I will stay on the nomination (I wrote a decent stub, and that was a redlink on the WikiProject Trains requested article list since June 2008, so I can take some credit). It's great to see that become a decent article now though - I expected it to be a stub for a lot longer considering how long it was a redlink. Again, great work! TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 23:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I agree that you deserve credit for the article ( I rarely take the initiative to start articlesl), the stub that you wrote summarized the main points about the railroad nicely and most of that text forms the article's intro now. 'Great work' to you too! Synchronism (talk) 00:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Chili Line

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

On December 9, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Chili Line, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page _{(here's how)} and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Albuquerque, New Mexico edits to Art and Culture section

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Thanks for putting the Arts and Culture section back in the Albuquerque, New Mexico article. As a disinterested editor I was so angry at the removal, I found I couldn't say anything civil about it. Should I fix up the references there that need reference tags, or wait for the dispute to end? (The editor in question has not yet learned about Talk pages, I suspect.) —Aladdin Sane (talk) 06:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The section definitely needs to be trimmed but not to just a few sentences. The ref fix would be a good start to getting that section up to par, no matter what happens with ZekeW.Synchronism (talk) 06:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

ABQ Skyline

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Well, I can't seem to figure out why it came out that way, I knew someone was going to question me on that, It must be a mistake with the camera or the computer? I no longer have that camera. ZekeW (talk) 07:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

SPI

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Yep, I've been suspecting this one... I'm glad you've filed the case. PolTX likes his games, doesn't he? LadyofShalott 08:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, what (s?)he does is distracting and annoying, aside from often introducing problematic content. I wouldn't be surprised if his persistence is one of the reasons User:Uncia has retired.Synchronism (talk) 00:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Sock Puppet?

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Seriously do all the "investigating" you want. But I know I'm not one. I love working on wikipedia, but I have never had a previous account. Hope to work with you in the future. ZekeW (talk) 19:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Definition of High-Speed Rail...

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hi there,

I see we had a little bit of disagreement on how to define high-speed rail. Most articles adopt the standard as laid out by the UIC (http://www.uic.org/spip.php?article971). I believe your definition does not adhere to any international norm or standard I am aware of, and if I am mistaken, please kindly point out. Otherwise, I will revert the table of countries by HSR network to my previous edit. Thanks. Soupysoap (talk) 14:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not attempting to "define high-speed rail" I'm attempting to make the table easy to maintain and usable for comparison from the same various perspectives noted by the UIC task force that you linked to above. The table has something for all three; highest test speed=rolling stock, fastest scheduled trains=operating, and network length=infrastructure.

The construction of newly built, specially designed infrastructure that occupies mostly new rights-of-way is far more notable and significant than upgraded conventional lines. These new infrastructures have good media coverage and their dimensions have the benefit of being static figures. The numeric figures are unlikely to change. The EC directive makes a clear distinction between new infrastructure and "upgraded" lines, for regulatory purposes they are classified together as "high speed lines". As the UIC points out, the genuineness of calling these upgraded lines and urban connecting lines "high speed lines" is questionable because of the many speed restrictions imposed on trains operating on them. The fact that slower conventional traffic may still move about such lines also blurs the distinction between what is a high speed line and what is just a fast conventional railway. Although they feature sections with breakneck speed Northeast Corridor, Berlin–Hamburg Railway and the Great Western Main Line, are still only heavily rebuilt 19th century railways and are vastly different beasts than the Wuhan–Guangzhou High-Speed Railway, LGV Est or the Cologne–Frankfurt high-speed rail line. The latter lines feature steep grades, very large turn radii, extremely superelevated curves and specially designed signaling systems, just to name some of the primary differences between the two.

The completion of China's speed-up campaign realized speed increases to thousands of miles of lines, however there are still many local speed restrictions in place on those lines. Attempting to maintain the figures based on the constantly changing length of track covered by high speed trains, information which (with some notable exceptions) is not often published, does not make sense. It obscures the infrastructural perspective in favor of the operational perspective; we cannot attempt to keep track of all rail lines that have only some high speed running and call it a high speed network because it is not pragmatic and completely obscures the more notable achievement of dedicated high speed lines. Sorry about the length of the reply, but I hope that we can come to an agreement. :)Synchronism (talk) 06:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

You appeared to have just gone ahead and reverted anyway without waiting for a reply like you implied you would above. I have undone this again for numerous reasons stated above and in edit summaries. Perhaps a good solution would be to create a new column so that both figures can be referred to. Although proper referencing will be more difficult, it would resolve this dispute over the purpose of that column.Synchronism (talk) 07:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, well reasoned. Thank you for the clarification. Apologies for my earlier doubts about your good faith and informedness. I will not make any further revision on your edits. Thanks. Soupysoap (talk) 16:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for El Paso and Northeastern Railway

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

On February 20, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article El Paso and Northeastern Railway, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Join the WP:USRDCUP 2010!

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

We're going to go ahead and try this again! The contest will begin April 1. It is a contest to encourage editors to improve teh quality of WP:USRD articles and participate in USRD. Precautions will be taken to make sure that people do not "game the system" and bring article quality down. Please sign up ASAP! Announcements regarding the contest will be made at WP:USRDCUP, Twitter, and/or IRC. --Rs chen 7754 06:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Your latest comment on "Genizaro" has a date that is a year old? Is this correct? Most of the issues you raise such as heading, and inline references have been addressed. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cumanche (talk • contribs) 15:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Gadsby

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I love your preservation of the lipogrammatic version of the Gadsby page. You do have the figure 250 in it, which strictly breaks the lipogram. The Latin for a quarter is 'quadrans', so perhaps change to 'quadrans-thousand'? Jess Cully (talk) 20:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that you also appreciate it. I am not its author though, the primary one is JJB. Cheers.Synchronism (talk) 20:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

An Invite to join the Highways WikiProject

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

- - - - - - - - - - - - WikiProject Highways - - - - - - - - - - - -
		Shortcuts WP:HWY WP:HWY/E WP:HWY/AS WP:HWY/AF WP:HWY/O WP:HWY/LA
Hi, Synchronism, you are graciously extended an invitation to join the International Highways WikiProject and its new regional taskforces! The Highways WikiProject is an evolving and expanding WikiProject. We are a group of editors who are dedicated to creating, revising, and expanding articles, lists, categories, and Wikiprojects, or anything related to International Roads. This includes supporting existing regional road WikiProjects and fostering the development of new international highway WikiProjects. We have recently created five regional task forces focused on Europe, Asia, Africa, Oceania and Latin America. To improve road and highway articles, here are guidelines for B class criteria. Please add any higher GA, FA quality articles to the international roads portal. Also, please help out by inviting new or unfamiliar editors with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/New articles/Invite template.

We look forward to welcoming you to the project!

JCbot (talk) 01:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Boys Noize

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Looks like someone has got a stub up. I was going to put the other one in as User:Synchronism/BoysNoize. To be honest, I'm not sure how to with the new page there. Never done a partial restore. I'd advise asking a longer term admin (and please ask them to tell me how to do it - the instructions are confusing...) It wasn't deleted for promotion, BTW. It was lack of notability and reliable sources. Peridon (talk) 18:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion for WikiProject United States to support WikiProject New Mexico

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It was recently suggested that WikiProject New Mexico, to which you are a member, may be inactive or semi-active and it might be beneficial to include it in the list of projects supported by WikiProject United States. After reviewing the project it appears that there haven't been much active discussion on the talk page in some time and the only content updates appear to be simple maintenance so being supported by a larger project might be beneficial. I have begun a discussion on the projects talk page to see how the members of the project feel about this suggestion. Another user has added the project to the WPUS template and I added it to the list of supported projects in the WPUS main project page but before I take any further action I wanted to contact each of the active members for their input. --Kumioko (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

September 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The September 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

--Kumioko (talk) 02:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

December 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The December 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

--Kumioko (talk) 03:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

January 2012 Newsletter for WikiProject United States and supported projects

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The January 2012 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

--Kumi-Taskbot (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

USRD WikiProject Newsletter, Winter 2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion


Volume 5, Issue 1 • Winter 2011 • About the Newsletter
This edition is going out to all USRD WikiProject members (current, former, or potential) in addition to other subscribers as part of a roll call to update the participants list. Anyone that would like to continue to receive this newsletter in the future needs to update the subscription list if they are not already subscribed.
Departments Assessment roundup Portal selected articles and pictures	Features U.S. Roads consolidates M-6 article makes headlines Planning Department debuts Stub drive concludes early, successfully Editorial	State and national updates Project news Task force reports for MD, MI, PA, and VA
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

—Imzadi 1979 → 22:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Decemmber 8 - Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle - You're invited

Seattle Public Library

Date Saturday, December 8, 2012
Time 10 a.m. – 3 p.m.
Location Seattle Public Library Meeting Room 1 on Level 4, Central Library, 1000 4th Avenue, Seattle WA, 98104
Event An editathon on Seattle-related Wikipedia articles with Wikipedia tutorials and Librarian assistance on hand.
Hashtag #wikiloveslib or #glamwiki.
Registration http://wll-seattle.eventbrite.com or use on-wiki regsistration.

Yours, Maximilianklein (talk) 03:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello, Synchronism. You have new messages at TheCatalyst31's talk page.
Message added 11:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Article Feedback deployment

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hey Synchronism; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

RfC:Infobox Road proposal

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

WP:AURD (Australian Roads), is inviting comment on a proposal to convert Australian road articles to {{infobox road}}. Please come and discuss. The vote will be after concerns have been looked into.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian Roads/RfC:Infobox Road proposal

You are being notified as a member on the list of WP:HWY

Nbound (talk) 22:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Greetings. Because you participated in the August 2013 move request regarding this subject, you may be interested in participating in the current discussion. This notice is provided pursuant to Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Freedoms of the Air Diagram

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Spotted and error in your diagram. 8th freedom of the air should be two blue circles and one red.

Thenoflyzone (talk) 03:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the caption for the diagram could be more clear. And I'm sure a much better diagram could be produced for the article, one that avoids most or any confusion, but the red circles indicate markets that are foreign to the operating airline (the blue circles being the operator's home country). If you look closely the two red circles for eighth freedom both have the same letter meaning they are both locations in country b, so the diagram should indicate that an airline from country a is operating a service within foreign country b.Synchronism (talk) 13:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, thanks for bringing this to my attention, perhaps I'll have some time on my hands later this year to make a better one. I hope your new year is off to a good start!Synchronism (talk) 13:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello, Synchronism. 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)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello, Synchronism. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)