User talk:Weakopedia

This user may have left Wikipedia. Weakopedia has not edited Wikipedia for a considerable amount of time. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Let's discuss things! No, not you.... you would be better going back and rereading the rules first, hadn't you? Weakopedia (talk) 07:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I had a question about some information regarding an edit you made on the "Keep Gettin' it On" wikipedia page you made several years ago and the source of that information. Is there an email where it would be better to contact you with? My question is essentially where you obtained your information about the story of Marvin Gaye and Ed Townsend playing a 40 minute session of Let's Get it On after Townsend joked Gaye had never sung a complete song. My email is zackls.zdb@gmail.com.

Hi there, forgive me if this comes cross as intrusive but when I looked into this, I noticed that the to this day unsourced contribution that you mention may not have been made by this user. They did however add the banner at the top of the article concerning the article's lack of sources in the previous change to the article, which suggests that there may have been an accidental mixup of the two changes while consulting the list of changes. And there seems to have been a remnant of the talk entry title above yours in your title, which I have now amended in hopes of your agreement. lmaxmai, 18 September 2020

I had a look and while there does seem to be a sense of humour, what I did not find in their commentary as well as their vote of support regarding the nomination of an administrator, which itself references their personal experiences with the nominee, is questioning said nomination and the possible conflicts of interest resulting from the nomination by an at the time assumably active administrator who, according to the nominee, mentored them. And I would frankly expect that in light of the rather hefty allegations on this profile about the complete lack of trustworthiness of this platform, which seem to be bordering on conspiracy theories. lmaxmai, 18 September 2020