Hello, this is IP75. Please leave a message at the sound of the tone. IP75 23:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I asked the tech dudes, and apparently it is impossible to give autoconfirmed status early. Again, I'm really sorry that I stopped you from editing that page, but in light of the recent controversy surrounding him, I don't think I can unprotect it. Gah, I don't know what to do. J.delanoygabsadds 23:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I responded to your query on my talk page Erudy (talk) 01:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks much for the heads-up about the public image article. Please stop over at the main article and cast your vote as to whether that article is biased or neutral. Thanks, LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 03:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
here. Thanks.
Justmeherenow ( ) 19:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From the 40+ talk page archives:
I believe it was removed from the 'Personal life' section along with her penchant for moose burgers. I also support the inclusion of Palin's 'running' in marathons and away from the media :) The detail in the former version made it a little hagiographic. IP75 (talk) 23:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey, look at her. She needed some new clothes! What's the big deal? :) IP75 (talk) 15:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Fully agree with your comments on the Admin board about full protection. Despite fairly regular differences in opinion and the occasional flat-out fight, we have settled into an effective methodology on Sarah Palin that seems to work and satisfy the majority of contributors. By the same token, I can see the rationale in applying a policy universally to all four articles to preclude any perception of preference, e.g. we wouldn't want to have McCain fully-protected and Obama semi-protected just prior to an election. Let's hope they decide to restore the semi-protection status of all candidate articles. Fcreid (talk) 10:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that. I have been doing a general edit for clarity and accuracy as well as formatting inline citations and checking RS. I objected to the mention of this video, as it is not from anyone associated with the actual production and we were giving a spotlight on something that I felt did not meet notability. I am trying to move slowly enough as to not crowd editing. I fully support the exclusion of that content!--Amadscientist (talk) 08:56, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
![]() | Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Congrats Barkeep49 on your successful ARBCOM nomination and receiving the most !votes. Well deserved! Best, IP75 (talk) 07:20, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]