User talk:Triacylglyceride

Sorry, I wrote the article some time ago. I can't remember the sources.Barbara Shack (talk) 11:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brown University has been a recurring candidate for the Universities Collaboration of the Month but it has been short the votes necessary to win on several occasions. If you'd like to see a concerted effort to improve the article on your alma mater, please drop by the collaboration page to cast your vote. Also feel free to help improve our current collaborations during their last few days. Cheers! -Mabeenot (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Some of your recent edits, such as those you added to March 10, have been considered unhelpful or unconstructive and have been reverted or removed. Wikicalendar guidelines state that only observances that occur on the same date each year and are the subject of their own Wikipedia article should be added to calendar articles. Additionally, entries should only be made for holidays and observances that are widely celebrated as such and not just dates on which certain events occur. Refer to WP:DOY for details on what are acceptable entries in Wikicalendar articles. Thank you. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 00:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Missed that guideline; thought it had been removed for lack of citation. Sorry, should have checked!Triacylglyceride (talk) 15:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simple as that; I'm a little sick from reading the discussion at User talk:Becritical. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your saying so! It can be tricky to find constructive things to say to people like Becritical; while I agree with the sentiments you expressed on their talk page, I don't think your approach is very high-yield. Still, thanks for chipping in -- if nothing else, it's good for people to know that Becritical isn't setting the tone. Honestly, looking at their latest round of comments (they object to others being hurt? Seriously?), I don't know what one could say.

I believe that there's nothing more to do to encourage Becritical not to Bebigoted -- Wikipedia's policy, sensibly, is to never make discussion of drama more dramatic than the original drama, in my understanding, and Becritical's original comment was out of the way on an IP user's talk page. Please let me know if you have a different understanding, and there is someone equipped to let them know that they're wrong. Triacylglyceride (talk) 23:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to you on my talk page. Have a nice day!--Piast93 17:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Based on your interests and userpage, I just wanted to extend to you an invitation to stop by the Medicine WikiProject. It's pretty low-key, but there's a good group of editors there and the project talk page can be a good place to get second opinions, outside eyes, or feedback on medical articles and topics. Anyhow, happy editing. :) MastCell ^Talk 19:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That's awesome. Will check it out. Triacylglyceride (talk) 05:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also thanks for chipping in vs. Becritical! I was trying to reason him into changing his ways, but it is 100% O.K. with me that somebody with the granules to do so came around to shame him into change instead. I've only just started doing Serious Editing (i.e., interacting with the community to effect edits, as opposed to copy-editing and counter-vandalism), so I didn't feel prepared to Type with Authority on what the Wikipedia community will and will not accept. Still, I know a few casual Wikipedians who will be glad to see the shut-down Becritical received on multiple fronts. Cheers! Triacylglyceride (talk) 05:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please ensure that previous warning are not stale before raising the warning level. The previous level 3 warning was from November 2007. A level 1 warning would have been appropriate. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 16:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had, in fact, missed the time since the last warning of vandalism. My bad. Triacylglyceride (talk) 21:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Orientia tsutsugamushi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Japanese (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bottomline: Threesomes or threesome sex cannot be defined usefully without references to the modern concept of swinging.

Swingers have labored for decades trying to throw the yoke off that it is nothing more than wife-swappping. Swingers are far more than just married couples, and it is far more than just twosomes! There is a wide variety of individuals, couples, orientation, and sexual activity that occurs in swinging. It is a very big tent, but threesome sex is probably the single biggest attraction for people to join the lifestyle--both singles and couples.

The maths alone should be proof. There are hundreds of swinger websites. Each with thousands of profiles in their memberships. The larger websites have millions of members, and the biggest boasts over 42 million world-wide! Sociologist believe there are about 2-4 million couples in the North America who are swingers. Either by polling, by anecdote, or by searching the databases of swinger websites, the result is the same, single men seeking to do a threesome with a couple or couples seeking a threesome with either a male or a female. Nearly every profile of new swinger couples state that their desire is to find another person who would like to do a threesome with them. Sometimes it is to explore one of the members bisexuality. Sometimes it is to engage in some mild cuckold fantasy. Most frequently it is seen as the "tamest" way to introduce some spice into sex life. For the experienced swingers in group settings, with other couples or just singles, the sexual activity they engage in almost always includes a sexual act that can be classified as a threesome. The nomenclature for threesome sex is replete with names and combinations and positions for threesome sex that are almost unknown by the majority of people who have never had sex with more than one person at a time. Non-English speaking Wiki entries for "threesome" (or translation) almost always include these descriptions. [see German]

But no matter what, threesome sex is almost always the first vehicle for entering into swinging--if not in fact or in deed, then at least by preference or fantasy. "Threesome" and "Threesome Sex" could probably be divided into two different Wiki entries, but the average reader would have no understanding (or sympathy) as why there would be two dividing philosophies that would demand separate entries. For most, threesome is one concept, and that idea is overwhelmingly the sexual act itself. Just do an unrestricted search for the word threesome on the Internet and look at the kind of results you would likely see.

I understand that there is a cultural divide between polyamory and swinging. I've seen it for decades. The first emphasize the emotional bonds and the relationships and the degrees of commitment or love that exists in such relationships. The second are more likely to emphasize the sexual activity and its recreational and casual aspects. The result is a constant ontological turf war where the two sides fight over control of the language. Nonetheless, it is a disservice to have a encyclopedic entry on threesomes without a direct reference to swinging--particularly if the entry elaborates the concept with direct references to polyamory and Ménage à trois and mentions non-monogamous sex without a naming the central path by which such threesomes occur.

Clearly, when people want to know the Who, What, When, Where and Why of threesomes it must include swinging. It is a huge fantasy for many people, and it is the single most cited request in profiles of millions of swingers. And it is statistically the overwhelming experience of swingers and those that have casual threesome sex.

I have not reverted my reference to swinging in the central definition because I want to make sure we have an common understanding rather than engage in constant edits and rollbacks. My point is that you have stated that you want the definition to be more generalized yet are attempting to exclude the single largest category of millions of adherents who want, fantasize or regularly engage in (recreational) threesome sex. To have a definition that includes polyamory and Ménage à trois with only an oblique reference to swinging fails to give a proper definition. JVB. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohannVanbeek (talk • contribs) 20:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved this conversation to the talk page on threesomes.

RE: There is a link for pregnancy that leads to here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnancy_(mammals). I think it would better to lead to here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnancy

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.14.135 (talk) 20:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you should make an account and edit it yourself! Or perhaps bring it up on the talk page for that article. It's a big article, so I'm not going to try and hunt down that link myself. Triacylglyceride (talk) 21:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How is the following not an objective criticism of the archaeological evidence of Algonquian prehistory?

'Contemporary linguistic perspectives reveal controversies between archaeological and linguistic theories regarding reconstructions of the prehistory and migration of the societies that correlate with proposed origins of the Book of Mormon. According to the Journal of Archaeology of Eastern North America, "Most archeologists in the Northeast, rejecting earlier theories of migration and diffusion, now assume indigenous cultural development and continuity of settlement in the region, from Paleo-Indian times until the historic period. However, this assupmption appears to be incompatible with linguists' reconstructions of Algonquian prehistory, which presuppose a relatively late migratory expansion from a northern homeland. When archeologists have not simply ignored the linguistic evidence, they have either drastically altered the proposed linguistic chronology to fit their own models, or else have questioned the theoretical validity of the linguists' models. (e.g., Snow 1977, 1980)" This linguistic evidence suggests that current archaeological models may not reflect the beliefs of other scholarly domains of historical analysis.' http://www.jstor.org/stable/40914351 Thepasta (talk) 00:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to this at talk:Nephite. Triacylglyceride (talk) 17:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. It's generally best not to comment on an editor's opinions or behavior unless the editor is making a change to the page that you do not support or disrupting the project in some way. In this case, it seems we are all in agreement that the wording was not ideal, and we should have left it at that. Engaging editors in differences of opinion not directly related to a specific proposed change only leads to long drawn-out discussions that are not supposed to happen on talk pages. If you disagree with a change in an article, simply cite your sources and the appropriate policy and try to reach a consensus. If it's not directly related to a change in an article, a comment like this on a talk page or a private email (if that's an option) is almost always preferable. Jokestress (talk) 07:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited IUD with copper, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Fundus and Suture (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just received your message, what are your thoughts? -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first edition of The Pulse has been released. The Pulse will be a regular newsletter documenting the goings-on at WPMED, including ongoing collaborations, discussions, articles, and each edition will have a special focus. That newsletter is here.

The newsletter has been sent to the talk pages of WP:MED members bearing the {{User WPMed}} template. To opt-out, please leave a message here or simply remove your name from the mailing list. Because this is the first issue, we are still finding out feet. Things like the layout and content may change in subsequent editions. Please let us know what you think, and if you have any ideas for the future, by leaving a message here.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC) on behalf of WikiProject Medicine.[reply]

Neat news: BMJ is offering 25 free, full-access accounts to their prestigious medical journal through The Wikipedia Library and Wiki Project Med Foundation (like we did with Cochrane). Please sign up this week: Wikipedia:BMJ --Cheers, Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Medicine; Translation Taskforce

Medical Translation Newsletter
Issue 1, June/July 2014
by CFCF, Doc James

sign up for monthly delivery

This is the first of a series of newsletters for Wikiproject Medicine's Translation Task Force. Our goal is to make all the medical knowledge on Wikipedia available to the world, in the language of your choice.

note: you will not receive future editions of this newsletter unless you *sign up*; you received this version because you identify as a member of WikiProject Medicine

Spotlight - Simplified article translation

---

Wikiproject Medicine started translating simplified articles in February 2014. We now have 45 simplified articles ready for translation, of which the first on African trypanosomiasis or sleeping sickness has been translated into 46 out of ~100 languages. This list does not include the 33 additional articles that are available in both full and simple versions.

Our goal is to eventually translate 1,000 simplified articles. This includes:

• WHO's list of Essential Medicines[1]
• Neglected tropical diseases[2]
• Key diseases for medical subspecialties like: oncology, emergency medicine (list), anatomy, internal medicine, surgery, etc.

We are looking for subject area leads to both create articles and recruit further editors. We need people with basic medical knowledge who are willing to help out. This includes to write, translate and especially integrate medical articles.

What's happening?

---

IEG grant

I've (CFCF) taken on the role of community organizer for this project, and will be working with this until December. The goals and timeline can be found here, and are focused on getting the project on a firm footing and to enable me to work near full-time over the summer, and part-time during the rest of the year. This means I will be available for questions and ideas, and you can best reach me by mail or on my talk page.

Wikimania 2014

For those going to London in a month's time (or those already nearby) there will be at least one event for all medical editors, on Thursday August 7th. See the event page, which also summarizes medicine-related presentations in the main conference. Please pass the word on to your local medical editors.

Integration progress

There has previously been some resistance against translation into certain languages with strong Wikipedia presence, such as Dutch, Polish, and Swedish.
What was found is that thre is hardly any negative opinion about the the project itself; and any such critique has focused on the ways that articles have being integrated. For an article to be usefully translated into a target-Wiki it needs to be properly Wiki-linked, carry proper citations and use the formatting of the chosen target language as well as being properly proof-read. Certain large Wikis such as the Polish and Dutch Wikis have strong traditions of medical content, with their own editorial system, own templates and different ideas about what constitutes a good medical article. For example, there are not MEDRS (Polish,German,Romanian,Persian) guidelines present on other Wikis, and some Wikis have a stronger background of country-specific content.

• Swedish
  Translation into Swedish has been difficult in part because of the amount of free, high quality sources out there already: patient info, for professionals. The same can be said for English, but has really given us all the more reason to try and create an unbiased and free encyclopedia of medical content. We want Wikipedia to act as an alternative to commercial sources, and preferably a really good one at that.
  Through extensive collaborative work and by respecting links and Sweden specific content the last unintegrated Swedish translation went live in May.
• Dutch
  Dutch translation carries with it special difficulties, in part due to the premises in which the Dutch Wikipedia is built upon. There is great respect for what previous editors have created, and deleting or replacing old content can be frowned upon. In spite of this there are success stories: Anafylaxie.
• Polish
  Translation and integration into Polish also comes with its own unique set of challenges. The Polish Wikipedia has long been independent and works very hard to create high quality contentfor Polish audience. Previous translation trouble has lead to use of unique templates with unique formatting, not least among citations. Add to this that the Polish Wikipedia does not allow template redirects and a large body of work is required for each article.
  (This is somewhat alleviated by a commissioned Template bot - to be released). - List of articles for integration
• Arabic
  The Arabic Wikipedia community has been informed of the efforts to integrate content through both the general talk-page as well as through one of the major Arabic Wikipedia facebook-groups: مجتمع ويكيبيديا العربي, something that has been heralded with great enthusiasm.

Integration guides

Integration is the next step after any translation. Despite this it is by no means trivial, and it comes with its own hardships and challenges. Previously each new integrator has needed to dive into the fray with little help from previous integrations. Therefore we are creating guides for specific Wikis that make integration simple and straightforward, with guides for specific languages, and for integrating on small Wikis.

Instructions on how to integrate an article may be found here [3]

News in short

---

To come

• Medical editor census - Medical editors on different Wikis have been without proper means of communication. A preliminary list of projects is available here.
• Proofreading drives

Further reading

• Translators Without Borders
• Healthcare information for all by 2015, a global campaign

Medical Translation partners Translators Without Borders WikiProject Medicine (English) Wiki Project Med Foundation resources Progress (full) Progress (simplified) Babylon Integration guides Wikipedia - Translate outreach Editor Outreach Journal outreach get involved Sign up

Thanks for reading! To receive a monthly talk page update about new issues of the Medical Translation Newsletter, please add your name to the subscriber's list. To suggest items for the next issue, please contact the editor, CFCF (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Wikiproject Medicine/Translation Taskforce/Newsletter/Suggestions.
Want to help out manage the newsletter? Get in touch with me CFCF (talk · contribs)
For the newsletter from Wikiproject Medicine, see The Pulse
If you are receiving this newsletter without having signed up, it is because you have signed up as a member of the Translation Taskforce, or Wiki Project Med on meta. 22:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Since you might not have seen my answer on my own talkpage, I'll try again this way:

Could you help me get started with the tweaking of the section of Frameless IUDs? Should I have had more sources than the included 11?

Thanks in advance. Fdemae (talk) 10:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm genuinely surprised that anyone could go seven years on this project without coming across this fact, but Wikipedia has adopted a style guideline with regard to quotation marks that is contrary to some classical style guides. That is, we place the WP:QUOTEMARKS within other coordinating punctuation. This is felt to be more logical and consistent with evolving style practices than the older prescriptivist view--which, as someone with a background in linguistics, I can tell you has not been consistent over the course of the history of English punctuation. Even in modern times, most of the English speaking world places the quotation marks to the interior of coordinating punctuation; the alternative method is an almost exclusively American contrivance that this community has decided to avoid, even in cases of articles which utilize an American style of grammar per WP:LANGVAR . Since you referenced orthography in your edit summary, you may be interested to find that even some contemporary American style guides based in a formal study of linguistics rather than prescriptivism share this outlook. And for the record, this is not meant to be a passive aggressive jab, I'm just hoping to forestall you from reverting the work of others in this area, since this is the predominant approach across Wikipedia! Snow ^{let's rap} 08:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, my bad! Thanks for the explanation. The choice of the word orthography was not meant to be passive-aggressive either, I just needed an example word.

Thanks for the links, I'll look through them later. I grew up with, as you say, the prescriptivist view, and the only groups I've known to use strict quotation marks have been computer scientists. Since their goals of communication are generally a little different (e.g., they -- we, for a time -- are used to contexts in which the inclusion or exclusion of punctuation is vital), I always classified it as a thing that I only did with that crowd.

Triacylglyceride (talk) 18:49, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I know exactly what you mean, having had to write for an American audience for a significant chunk of my professional life. It speaks to the obsessive nature of my inner logician that when I learned that Wikipedia had adopted the qoutemark standard referenced above, I distinctly remember saying "Oh thank goodness!" :) Incidentally, it is exactly computer scientists (and similar experts who have need of strictly logical syntax) who are referenced (notably, by Steven Pinker, the author of the style guide linked above) as most likely to object to the alternate prescriptivist method, regardless of where they happen to be working. Unfortunately, I think this prescription is likely to persist in certain regions for some time, as it's been drilled as the default by several generations, but who can say? I'm just glad that I don't have to check every article on WP for the dominant language variant before adding a quote! Snow ^{let's rap} 22:54, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Paper abortion. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. Motsebboh (talk) 00:18, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Did you know about Wikiversity Journal of Medicine? It is an open access, peer reviewed medical journal, with no publication charges. You can find more about it by reading the article on The Signpost featuring this journal.

We welcome you to have a look the journal. Like us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter. Feel free to participate in the journal.

You can participate in any one or more of the following ways:

• Publish an article to the journal.
• Sign up as a peer reviewer of potential upcoming articles. If you do not have expertise in these subjects, you can help in finding peer reviewers for current submissions.
• Sign up as an editor, and help out in open tasks.
• Outreach to potential contributors, with can include (but is not limited to) scholars and health professionals. In any mention of Wikiversity Journal of Medicine, there may be a reference to this Contribute-page. Example presentation about the journal.
• Add a post-publication review of an existing publication. If errors are found, there are guidelines for editing published works.
• Join the editorial board.
• Share your ideas of what the journal would be like in the future as separate Wikimedia project.
• Donate to Wikimedia Foundation.
• Translate journal pages into other languages. Wikiversity currently exists in the following other languages
  • Ceština, Deutsch, Español, Français, Italiano, 한국어, Português, Slovenšcina, Suomi, Svenska, Ελληνικά, Русский, العربية, 日本語
• Technical work like template designing for the journal.
• Sign up to get emails related to the journal, which are sent to updateswijoumed.org. If you want to receive these emails too, state your interest at the talk page, or contact the Editor-in-chief at haggstrom.mikaelwikiversityjournal.org.
• Spread the word to anyone who could be interested or could benefit from it.

The future of this journal as a separate Wikimedia project is under discussion and the name can be changed suitably. Currently a voting for the same is underway. Please cast your vote in the name you find most suitable. We would be glad to receive further suggestions from you. It is also acceptable to mention your votes in the wide-reachwikiversityjournal.org email list. Please note that the voting closes on 16th August, 2016, unless protracted by consensus, due to any reason.

Diptanshu^Talk 15:01, 11 August 2016 (UTC) -on behalf of the Editorial Board, Wikiversity Journal of Medicine.[reply]

Hello, Triacylglyceride. 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)[reply]

Hello, I'm Jamesjpk. I wanted to let you know that the Wikiproject Spoken Wikipedia, has been tagged with a semi-active tag. I am messaging you about this because you are listed under the wiki-project's list of active participants. Please contribute to the WikiProject if you want to keep it alive! I hope that it becomes active again! Jamesjpk (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Triacylglyceride:,

unfortunately, you twice accused me of "edit warring" (Diff, Diff), even though I only once reverted an edit of yours. An edit war consists of several reverts of an edit inconvenient to the edit warrior, and a single edit does not consitute an edit war. Furthermore, you called into question whether I not I edit in good faith (Diff). This goes against the Wikipedia guideline that can be read here. Both of these actions are unfortunate and constitute slight misdemeanor. I urge you to stop this kind of behaviour. Furthermore, I remind you that unlike myself, you actually reverted my edit twice (Diff, Diff). Finally, as can be seen from these two diff-links, you accuse my wording of being "inaccurate" and "charged", without any justification as to why this should be the case. --Mathmensch (talk) 13:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I feel I gave adequate justification on the Abortion talk page. I feel like when an edit has been reverted and a request has been made for discussion on the talk page, reverting back to the edit without discussion is not good. It is not how I would choose to edit Wikipedia. However, I agree that "edit war" is not an accurate description of that, and for that I apologize. Triacylglyceride (talk) 18:46, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Hello, Triacylglyceride. 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)[reply]

Hello, Triacylglyceride. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in abortion. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 12:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In a filing at WP:AN3, you said you believe the article is subject to 1RR.

Looking at your edit history at Catholic Church and abortion, would you like to self-revert this edit, your second within 24 hours? —C.Fred (talk) 02:51, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant suggestion, thank you! I made it, realized it, regretted it, and just flat-out didn't realize I could take it back. Triacylglyceride (talk) 03:35, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Triacylglyceride! I am Galendalia and I have revived the WikiProject for Spoken Wikipedia. I noticed that you signed up at some point to be a participant and as I am reviving this project, one of my tasks is to get the participant list in order. Would you please go to the Participants List and add your name and language(s) you speak? If you are already there and do not want to be, please move yourself to the inactive list at the bottom of the page. If you want to remain, please put remain next to your name (this way you are not moved). If I do not see anything from you by May 30, 2020, I will move you to the inactive participant list. It would also be great if you would be willing to join the task force for Pronunciation that would be awesome, as there are troublesome words we run into. Thank you for considering joining us. If you decide to leave, I will be sad to see you leave as so many people have done a great job on the recordings and any work you have done makes a significant difference. Galendalia (talk · contribs) (sent via Mass Message. This is a message that is one time, so no unsubscribe link is provided.)

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia at 11:42, 16 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Hello Triacylglyceride! I hope this message finds you well and healthy! I am working this weekend on the Spoken Wikipedia project pages to get them in line with other projects. I just wanted to inform you in advance that some pages may be created. deleted, moved, or otherwise. If you have any questions, please feel free to post them on my talk page.
Thanks, Galendalia (talk) 16:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC) WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia Coordinator[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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]