User talk:Pariah24

This user prefers to receive notifications. Please use {{ping}} or {{reply to}} when you reply to him on other pages. No talkback messages are needed.

User_talk:Pariah24/Archives/2017/April

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
126		Post–World War II anti-fascism (talk)	Add sources
3,123		Week (talk)	Add sources
2,630		Capital punishment in the United States (talk)	Add sources
358		Water softening (talk)	Add sources
2,853		Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (talk)	Add sources
1,588		Capital punishment by country (talk)	Add sources
605		Foreign policy of the United States (talk)	Cleanup
135		Clustered file system (talk)	Cleanup
337		Quasi-state (talk)	Cleanup
180		Patriot Prayer (talk)	Expand
5,293		Capital punishment (talk)	Expand
369		Rajputana Rifles (talk)	Expand
105		Anglicism (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
5,072		Virtual private network (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
232		High-Level Data Link Control (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
70		Authority (sociology) (talk)	Merge
126		Beaver eradication in Tierra del Fuego (talk)	Merge
795		Shepard Fairey (talk)	Merge
106		Transportation safety in the United States (talk)	Wikify
241		Knife game (talk)	Wikify
90		Chiropractic education (talk)	Wikify
4		Robert D. Houley (talk)	Orphan
9		Scanning fiber endoscope (talk)	Orphan
2		Bhalewadi (talk)	Orphan
41		Blind Man's Bluff: The Untold Story of American Submarine Espionage (talk)	Stub
59		Puget Sound John Brown Gun Club (talk)	Stub
19		Sophron (talk)	Stub
23		Clams oreganata (talk)	Stub
14		National Security Resources Board (talk)	Stub
10		Shoffner Act (talk)	Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:25, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Louder than Life

Hello, Pariah24. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Louder than Life".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Legacypac (talk) 22:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Rollback granted

Hi Pariah24. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Malinaccier (talk) 23:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to WP:STiki!

Hello, Pariah24, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Information about STiki, including: Using STiki and its hotkeys Comparison with other tools Information about vandalism on Wikipedia Here are some pages which are a little more fun: The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users! Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes! We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (talk) 18:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: Having a username change after you start using STiki will reset your classification count. Please let us know about such changes on the talk page page to avoid confusion in issuing milestone awards. You can also request for your previous STiki contributions to be reassigned to your new account name.

24 July 2017

Hi you deleted a first hand experience I posted on Skin Walker. I was trying to add a level of reality to the posting by relaying an experience I had in 1982. What seemed like a large animal or shape-shifter was actually a native american trying to scare us. How can I find an external reference, when there isn't one? I have a master's degree. You tell me how you would add references on this topic. James Arroyo

09:12:17, 25 July 2017 review of submission by 2A01:CB10:8415:5F00:C26:BA80:601:A5C4

• 2A01:CB10:8415:5F00:C26:BA80:601:A5C4 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Lex Eisenhardt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Do not understand why submission is declined. Date and place of birth (etc.) are included, as well as essential information on professional career. apart from a recently published book, there are recordings published with a high profile CD company. And articles published in highly respected magazines (Early Music - Oxford University Press, The Lute Journal).2A01:CB10:8415:5F00:C26:BA80:601:A5C4 (talk) 09:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Abdel Fattah el-Sisi

Hey Pariah24, just a note to say that the issue of Sisi being described as a dictator was addressed here on the talk page:

Talk:Abdel Fattah el-Sisi#Newspapers and journalists describing Sisi as a dictator.

I didn't add the original text to the lead describing Sisi as a dictator, though I did restore it. With no preference for the text you removed, we should nevertheless note somewhere in the article that Sisi is often referred to as a dictator, since the references on the talk page demonstrate that is true. -Darouet (talk) 16:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

@Darouet: My apologies, I didn't realize there were sources on the talk page. I'll check them out and see what best supports him being a dictator. Pariah24 (talk) 17:58, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

@Pariah24: no worries. I don't think we should write he's a dictator in Wikivoice (unless there's near unanimous consensus in sources) - rather just that he's described as such. -Darouet (talk) 18:17, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

@Darouet: I made an addition with a couple references, see what you think. Pariah24 (talk) 19:38, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

@Pariah24: I think it's good. We could change "...many have labeled him a strongman and compared him to Egypt's former dictators..." to "...him a strongman or dictator and compared..." because the Foreign Policy source describes his regime as a dictatorship: "...downsides of the new dictatorship’s governing approach will be toxic for Egypt over the long haul."[1] -Darouet (talk) 20:15, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

@Darouet: Okay by me. I wish I could find some more good free sources but unfortunately most of the free ones seem to be editorials/opinion pieces. Many of the really credible sources are in databases like Ebsco. I get free access through my local library but it would be nice to find some more stuff that isn't subscription only. I have a feeling someone is going to come along soon and challenge our claim. Pariah24 (talk) 20:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd never heard of Ebsco and am not always satisfied by LexisNexis, so... I'll give it a whirl! One thing we can do is quote the sections of the relevant articles in the "quote" parameter of the citations. -Darouet (talk) 00:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Re: SS Brazil Victory

"Hello, I'm Pariah24. I noticed that in this edit to SS Brazil Victory, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Pariah24 (talk) 01:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)"

Hello! I am still new to the editing scene, and neglected to include my edit summary; I shall certainly do so in the future. As for the removed content: most of the removed content was referring to the difference between Victory-class and Liberty-class ships. Both encyclopedia articles are linked on the page, and the information included about the differences was, in my mind, unnecessary and simply cluttered the opening description.

Of course, that is my view; I appreciate any feedback as I am still learning the system. Thanks! PotatoNorman (talk) 01:49, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

@PotatoNorman: No problem; the main reason I reverted was because you deleted a valid reference, probably by accident. Feel free to re-add your info. Pariah24 (talk) 01:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I looked into it again, and saw my mistake. I fixed that and resubmitted my version with the mistake fixed. Thank you for your help, I would appreciate it if you take a quick peek at it again. PotatoNorman (talk) 02:10, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Recent edit to Tim Cummings

You flagged a plethora of artistic credits for not citing sources when all of them already contained links to their legitimate sources. Can you please explain why you flagged these credits, and why you removed all the active links? Thank you.

75.141.125.234 (talk) 21:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC) Representative for client

Hello, I reverted your edit because external links usually do not belong in the main space of the article. Listing a few at the bottom (like the main imdb page) in a links section is okay, but every film can't have its own external link. If the movie doesn't have its own Wikipedia article, you're welcome to create one, provided the work meets notability guidelines. I suggest you check out Wikipedia:Notability (films). Have a good day. Pariah24 (talk) 22:50, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Please be cautious when disambiguating links

In this instance, you removed a link rather than fixing the link to point to the correct article. Please be careful and take the time to fix links correctly. Thanks for all your hard work in fixing these links. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:05, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

@Nihonjoe: My apologies, I didn't realize it was a Doctor Who reference, I thought it was just a random wikilink to the dab page, that's why I unlinked it. My mistake. Pariah24 (talk) 01:11, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

No problem. It's been 7 years since that link was made, and it was correct at that time. That's how I figured out what it was supposed to link to. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 03:17, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Please do not add topics to the monthly disambiguation list.

Please do not add topics to the monthly disambiguation list as you did here. The monthly list is a record of the state of disambigution pages with incoming links at the beginning of the listed month. Adding new pages to the list confuses the state of things at the beginning of the month. bd2412 T 18:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

@BD2412: Then the system needs to be fixed, because that's extremely unhelpful. The pages in Category:Disambiguation pages with many incoming links are not listed on the WikiProject page, so I would guess many people don't even know they exist and need to be fixed. So, figuring out a solution to that problem might be a better use of your energy than admonishing me for tampering with your broken system in an attempt to help. Pariah24 (talk) 19:02, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

The system is not broken, it is finely tuned to a specific purpose. If you want a roughly current list of pages by number of incoming links, that is at the "Disambiguation pages with links" report. It would be absurd to try to make the monthly list replicate that dynamic list on an ongoing basis. bd2412 T 19:20, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank You!

		The Redirect Barnstar
		Your diligent work in the area of redirect categorization and improvement is duly recognized and greatly appreciated. You are truly one of the unsung heroes of Wikipedia, and we hope you continue to enjoy your improvement of this awesome encyclopedia!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  10:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

South African

By changing South African from a redirect to a disambiguation page, you broke many hundreds of existing links. In any event, I strongly suspect that the term has a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. If you disagree, you are welcome to start a discussion by requesting a move of South African (disambiguation) back to the unqualified title, but please also take note of WP:FIXDABLINKS. Thank you. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:44, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

@R'n'B: I don't know about many hundreds, I spent quite a while yesterday disambiguating links and was nearly done, but I guess it doesn't matter now. Pariah24 (talk) 19:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Also I don't have any issue with the page I made existing at (disambiguation) as long as it's somewhere; the term does primary refer to the nation but can have many other meanings. Pariah24 (talk) 21:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Help:IPA/English

Here's a link for you: Help_talk:IPA/English#Should_we_stop_distinguishing_.2Fi.2C_u.2F_from_.2Fi.CB.90.2C_u.CB.90.2F_and.2For_stop_transcribing_.22length.22.3F. /i/ is normally not considered a phoneme but a convenient way of saying 'either /ɪ/ or /iː/. I suggest that you calm down by the way. Mr KEBAB (talk) 14:45, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm beginning to lose my patience with you. You clearly seem to be WP:NOTHERE, you just want to have the last word at all costs. If you keep lying about my actions ('providing nonsensical edit summaries', 'harassing me about closing my AfD') admins will take a look at you. Mr KEBAB (talk) 17:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@Mr KEBAB: You're losing your patience...that's rich considering this harassment only goes one way. You're pretending everything you say makes sense and I'm just an idiot when I question it. I'm aware /ər/ and /ɜr/ are different phonemes, because I'm in fact not an idiot. Let me see if I can break this down for you:

1. I create a footnote and reference it to note that /ɜr/ commonly appears in American English pronunciations and is generally identical to /ɜːr/, which is helpful info
2. Someone comes along and revises it to say /ər/ and /ɜːr/ are identical in AmEn, which is also true, and probably more pertinent than what I had to say
3. I revise it to include my original note as well
4. You in your neurotic way don't even wait for anyone else to weigh in, because in your delusional mind you are the linguistics authority and can do no wrong, and appear to just enjoy reverting my edits

And now you have the audacity to talk about your patience, when this has been harassment from the very start? You follow me around and revert my every edit, no matter how trivial, and try to turn it around on me? I'm fairly active on here, so if I were anywhere nearly as stupid as you think I am, I would have people messing with my contributions all the time. Yet it doesn't happen much, except apparently when a crazy person decides they know everything and makes policing others (poorly) a priority over contributing content. I am not a person who tries to be an armchair expert in things in which I know I have no proficiency. That's more your thing I think. If I make an error, it's in good faith, and if someone coherently explains to me why they needed to remove or correct something, it's fine. You do not do that. You delete things, and leave an edit summary that usually doesn't even address the matter at hand. In fact, sometimes it's completely circular logic that ends up where I was going in the first place! Explain to me how I can make a footnote that says "this phoneme that's used in some dictionaries for AmEn is identical to this one" and you revert it with an edit summary that says "that's identical to /ɜːr/, it's just written differently." I KNOW, THAT'S WHAT I JUST SAID! I don't know if you're just overthinking this stuff, or you just have a grudge against me for god know's what reason, but your justifications are not making sense to a sane person. Pariah24 (talk) 18:08, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure if I really wanted to, even someone as supposedly dumb as me could comb through your contributions and find some mistakes to revert by pure luck. But I don't, probably because I'm an adult. Instead of blaming others, maybe you need to look inward and consider how your strange behavior affects people's perception of you. Pariah24 (talk) 18:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

STOP saying that I'm harassing you. This is your final warning. Lying about harassment violates WP:NPA and I will report you to the admins if you ever say that I'm harassing you again without providing clear evidence of me doing so (which you can't possibly do). We both know you're lying so cut it out.

It's also very interesting how you bravely talk about being delusional and sanity as well as constantly bringing up the subject of you being an adult and your intelligence. That says something about you, rather than about me. Notice: you are the one using the words like "idiot" and "dumb" to describe yourself. This is your conscious choice and none of my business. Whether or not I have an opinion about your intelligence shouldn't be any of your concern and vice versa.

I create a footnote and reference it to note that /ɜr/ commonly appears in American English pronunciations and is generally identical to /ɜːr/, which is helpful info - no, it's not. It's not 'generally identical to /ɜːr/', it IS /ɜːr/ transcribed in a different way. That's the whole point. /ər/, on the other hand, is a different phoneme (or a sequence of phonemes) that in General Amercan is generally identical to what you can transcribe with /ɜːr/, /ɜr/ or whatever symbol you choose.

You in your neurotic way don't even wait for anyone else to weigh in - I don't have to wait when what you're saying is obviously wrong (and in that case it was).

because in your delusional mind you are the linguistics authority and can do no wrong, and appear to just enjoy reverting my edits - more projection, you better check yourself when you're talking about being delusional and being unable to do any wrong, what a monumental hypocrisy.

And now you have the audacity to talk about your patience, when this has been harassment from the very start? - seeing that you have the audacity to lie about being harassed by me, why not?

You follow me around and revert my every edit, no matter how trivial - care to prove that with diffs, liar? That's what I thought.

except apparently when a crazy person decides they know everything and makes policing others a priority over contributing content. - all lies and a personal attack. You really want to talk to an admin, don't you?

(poorly) - coming from you, a guy who can't differentiate between two phonemes and two transcriptions of one phoneme it's not worth much. Or anything at all.

I'm sure if I really wanted to, even someone as supposedly dumb as me could comb through your contributions and find some mistakes to revert by pure luck. - I care about the quality of Wikipedia, (Redacted). Whether I find your mistakes by luck or not is none of my concern, because I DO NOT CARE that it was you who made them. Am I getting through the wall with "MR KEBAB IS HARASSING AND POLICING ME" on it? (Redacted)

Notice that I've already addressed parts of what you wrote here on your Wiktionary talk page. I suggest that you go there and read my messages, because I don't feel like repeating myself again.

(Redacted)

At this point I'm not going to apologize to you unless an admin forces me to do so. You're a hypocrite who's calling me out on something you're doing yourself. You're also deliberately misrepresenting my actions. It's also rather questionable who started being rude in our interactions. Because I tell you... to call my closing your AfD nomination "harassment" is... I don't even know how to call that. Thanks to you, I had the biggest WTF moment of this year.

So far nobody has reported me to the admins so the problem can't be as big as you think. If you want to be the first one to do that, it's your business, but something is telling me that you won't even consider it (see above). Mr KEBAB (talk) 20:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

To put it another way: you have no right to expect to have your edits unchallenged nor to lie that it is harassment when one user does that to you. Wikipedia is not about you but about spreading knowledge. (Redacted) Mr KEBAB (talk) 20:47, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I find both of you needlessly combative.

Mr KEBAB, as much as I always appreciate your knowledge and expertise (I truly do), I sometimes find you too blunt to users who make good-faith yet misguided edits when reverting (cf. WP:BITE). I mean, this is frickin' Wikipedia, you can always instantly refer them to an article or policy that would help them acquire the relevant information and see what was deficient in their edits.

There's no shame in ignorance per se, because nobody knows everything from the get-go. So you can't expect them to know they are "wrong" simply because you say so. Pariah24 wasn't "lying", your description was in fact "nonsensical" in his subjective experience, and you could have done a better job explaining.

Pariah24, I suggest you take a look at WP:PRON (particularly the section WP:RHOTIC) and Help:IPA/English#Dialect variation (if you have, take another look).

Our Help:IPA/English system is a conflation of both RP and GenAm phonemes and it tells readers basically this: if you speak a non-rhotic accent, ignore the r's after vowels; if you speak a rhotic accent close to GenAm, ignore the length mark before r's because length is not important in those accents. In fact ⟨ɜːr⟩ used to be ⟨ɜr⟩, but the length was added because it is important in non-rhotic accents as I described in my version of the footnote. Nardog (talk) 08:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@Nardog: Ok, I see that we both screwed up, but at least 70% of what I wrote still stands, apart from the tone of it. Maybe he wasn't 'lying' in that particular instance, I probably also took that particular edit summary too literally. I'll try to redact parts of my messages, both here and on Wiktionary. Anyone who wishes to see them in their original versions should look at the edit history of this page. Mr KEBAB (talk) 19:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Font number of characters

Hi, I look after the font articles on Wikipedia mostly and I don't think this is very useful. It doesn't particularly help someone interested in fonts to know as it will vary a lot from version to version - for example Microsoft recently upgraded the version of Times New Roman bundled with Windows to add extra number styles and ligatures. In addition, it will vary often between different styles within a four-font family (say) - for example italic might have additional selectable flourish options not needed in upright, so it doesn't make sense to say authoritatively "Times New Roman comprises 2180 glyphs" (or whatever) - it will vary from release to release. The other information in the infobox is much more useful as a first thing to see - it's more timeless (what type of font, when it dates from, who designed it). I think character number is the kind of detailed information better left to the software maker or to be discussed further down the article. Blythwood (talk) 00:27, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

@Blythwood: I understand how listing characters and glyphs might be a bit redundant, but I disagree that it isn't useful. At least one of them should be listed. I myself have gone through the pains of trying to figure out what font will give me the best Unicode coverage, and I'm sure others have as well. Why would you not wish to save people from having to investigate a bunch of different fonts when the information can be displayed here? There's plenty of other parameters on the infobox template that are much less useful, so I don't understand your logic here. Pariah24 (talk) 21:55, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Also, "unnecessary" is a pretty poor justification for a revert. I consider thousands of pop culture topics included in Wikipedia "unnecessary," yet there they are. We're talking about one or two small lines on an infobox here. I think you're being pedantic, or acting as if you're the gatekeeper for these articles. I suggest reading WP:OWNBEHAVIOR if you haven't already. If it helps I can use estimations, or a range of numbers rather than an exact one, to address that concern. As far as being in the article but not the infobox I might be able to get on board with that, but it would still need to be placed where it isn't lost in the text. Pariah24 (talk) 22:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest

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!

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Pariah24. 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)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Pariah24. 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)

Edit-a-thon at Vanderbilt for REAL Symposium

Hope you can join Black Lunch Table edit-a-thon this Saturday!--Heathart (talk) 18:39, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

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) 00:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

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) 02:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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) 01:28, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)