User talk:The Drover's Wife/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Oops

Howdy. Ya might've made a mistake with your deletion at Prime Minister of Australia. I was speaking about the 'Acting Prime Minister' section & not the 'Former Prime Minister' section :) GoodDay (talk) 18:40, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

See Skyring/Pete's revert, at 17:57 19 August 2021. GoodDay (talk) 19:29, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

We don't know each other, so...

...It may not be the best idea to approach me for the first time as "dude". I'm not offended at all, but you may want to reconsider for the next time you need to speak with someone unfamiliar that may be offended. Dawnseeker2000 09:28, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

The problem with "needs discussion"

Per wp:DRNC, "If the only thing you have to say about a Wikipedia edit is that it lacks consensus, it's best not to revert it." If you say "needs discussion" then you should start a discussion on the talk page. See WP:SQSAVOID. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:11, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:Butwhatdoiknow:

Rewriting long-established Wikipedia guidelines in such a way that changes their meaning without prior discussion rarely meets with support or is a good idea.

(That said, I'm not sure if you realised that you changed the meaning/if it was just careless drafting, but either way.)

As in every other occasion where someone wants to change a guideline and meets with resistance, you need to actually get a consensus to do so. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:34, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Per wp:PGBOLD, "you should not remove any change solely on the grounds that there was no formal discussion indicating consensus for the change before it was made. Instead, you should give a substantive reason for challenging it either in your edit summary or on the talk page." Per wp:DRNC: "Don't assert 'no consensus' because you believe others might object to an edit. Let those editors do their own reverting, then the original contributor will know who disagrees with the edit and why. Or perhaps no one will object because, in fact, a silent consensus exits to keep the change."

I encourage you to state any substantive objection you have to my edit at Wikipedia_talk:Red_link#August_25_revert.. That is the place to say the edit changed the meaning and explain why you believe (if you do) that the changed meaning is inferior to the original meaning. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:45, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:Butwhatdoiknow:

What a surprise to know that I'm not the only one who had a problem with your edit. For future reference, it's often best to start with the discussion first with long-established guidelines. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:55, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

It occurs to me that I should explicitly acknowledge the validity of the advice you give in the second sentence. Per wp:PGBOLD,"most editors find prior discussion, especially at well-developed pages, very helpful." When I know that I am changing the meaning I follow that advice. Here's an example. (I continue to maintain that this advice does not justify a substance-free "discuss first" revert.) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:29, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

The other editor does not complain that I edited without discussing first. Instead, that editor provided a substantive explanation for opposing the change. You still have not done that. For future reference, it's always best to provide a substantive reason for any revert. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 04:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

west- section

the west article 'audience' section was the problem - the clues are there but do not make a coherent reference -

i look at the diff and you have reinstated the article tag - it doesnt make sense - JarrahTree 12:46, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

and for the likes of me cannot see where the extra refs dont go into https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Lovekin_Prize_in_Journalism JarrahTree 12:50, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

its that time of night - reply onto the page where it is appropriate...

I used to live on forbes street darlinghurst, many moons ago, and there was a time in the evening when the cockroaches used to start their journey from the back lane up to the house, usually after sunset. My feeling about the whole aspect of the newspaper/journalism field in the oz project is that it needs a bomb under the kitchen table/bar stool - metaphorical of course - there is so much that has slipped in... Palace Hotel habitues included in the Lovekin article of course... - even funnier was the fact that between the hotel and the newspaper house as late as the 50's (I think) was an underground loo in the middle of the terrace... presumably for the journos on their way back to work... JarrahTree 13:36, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Retired?

Hi, since you seem to be quite active on Wikipedia these days, can you remove the "Retired" sign on your user page?

Also, it appears to me that a round of archiving is need on this User talk page. Regards. Kautilya3 (talk) 10:34, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Fixed your talk page archiving

Hi! I took the liberty of fixing the auto-archiving settings at the top of this page. --rchard2scout (talk) 09:59, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Reverted changes on Brickendon and Woolmers Estates

I'm entirely unsure why you reverted my 2014 changes on Brickendon and Woolmers Estates with the note that it was vandalism. The two estates have separate articles (Brickendon Estate and Woolmers Estate, the page was therefore turned into a disambiguation entry. That is not vandalism. If you are concerned about how it has been executed, I am happy to hear feedback. JT_dale^Talk~ 09:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is RfC: Is the MichaelWestMedia/APAC.news content due?. Thank you.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:31, 26 September 2021 (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) 00:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:29, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Old Fremantle Police Station and Court House complex

Can I suggest that the title of the article should be Former Old Fremantle Police Station and Court House complex. Dan arndt (talk) 09:32, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

• What i actually meant. Dan arndt (talk) 23:27, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 14

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

George Edwards (Australian politician)

added a link pointing to Evening News

Henry Bailey (Australian politician)

added a link pointing to The Telegraph

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 25

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Gulgong Guardian

added a link pointing to Evening News

Thomas Frederic De Courcy Browne

added a link pointing to Evening News

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Cabinet Template

I don’t know what your personal issue is with me, but I had up to now always treated you with respect and held you in high regard for all that you have contributed on Wikipedia over the years. We don’t always agree, but we can agree to disagree without resorting to bad faith accusations of being unwilling to compromise and threatening to roll back years of hard work and care that had been taken updating the ministry pages. As you know there’s just been a change of government and there’s a mood now for people to be less combative and to treat each other with greater respect regardless of our differences. Hopefully that can be the case here as well, from here on out. TheScrubby (talk) 02:44, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gulgong Guardian, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Evening News.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on Indigenous placenames debate

Thanks for coming out of retirement to give your opinion on this debate, it's been a hell of an issue to work on. I knew it would be contentious, but as you probably know Wikipedia rules have been both extremely complicated and seemingly impossible to enforce. So it's been a hell of a time getting anything done. Thanks for your help. Poketama (talk) 12:29, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Reverts of my page moves

Hi The Drover's Wife. Could you be a bit more specific as to why you undid my recent page moves? (For example Hawkesdale back to Hawkesdale, Victoria). There is no particular requirement that all pagemoves be discussed, and note that the naming conventions at WP:NCAUST state for Australian placenames, "the name of a city or town may be used alone if the place is the primary or only topic for that name". Do you have some other objection? I am happy to start a RM if necessary, but it would be a waste of time if you are only reverting due to a lack of discussion. Thanks. A7V2 (talk) 06:51, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

BLP DS notice

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 articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

Nil Einne (talk) 09:18, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Please do not edit BLP articles as long as you are going to make claims with can cause harm to many article subjects

BLP applies on talk pages. Your statements on Talk:Zoe Daniel are incredibly harmful to many subjects who have been affected by paid editing, sometimes without their knowledge and are therefore completely unacceptable. What's worse is that you know the media is watching this yet you continue to spout such utter nonsense. Please do not make such utter nonsense unacceptable claims again or I will ask for you to be blocked. 09:20, 12 July 2022 (UTC) Nil Einne (talk) 09:20, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I would also remind you that putting aside other articles, you've effectively said that in this case if there were paid editing, it is surely the article subject. So if evidence does emerge whether on wikipedia or elsewhere, that their is paid editing, you've effectively caused the harm you are trying to avoid. So really I have no idea why on earth you would make such an utter nonsense claim which causes so much harm. You said somewhere that this is one of the worst BLP violations you've seen. I agree but except you're missing the point that the worst BLP violations here seem to be coming from you and not from anyone else. The tag should have been removed, but you've continued to make completely harmful claims unneeded for removing the tag which actually cause far greater harm than the tag every could because you're telling the media they're right even though they and you are utterly wrong. Even if there was paid editing, it's quite likely we'll never know who did it and will never know. The exception may be if this gets enough attention that someone investigates externally but that just illustrates the point that it's not something we here on wikipedia ever want to touch since it does not concern us. Nil Einne (talk) 09:48, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

And to be clear when I said evidence emerges I was not discussing tagging. The removal of the tag does not stop the media talking about the possibility of UPE. And while I don't care to investigate the details, since this originated offwiki, it's possible they would have been talking about even if there had been zero mention let alone tagging etc on wiki. Yet you think it's a good idea to tell the media if there is UPE, it's surely the article subject. What you want to do privately is up to you, but the fact you would repeat on wiki such a nonsense claim given the clear harm you risk causing is just unbelievable to me. You should be correcting wrong ideas the media and others have rather than re-enforcing them. The simple fact is UPE says nothing about an article subject, it's not our responsibility as editors to worry about who paid, other than demanding all paid editors disclose who paid as required by the ToU, in full knowledge it easily may not be the article subject knowingly or unknowingly. To tell the media we are fairly sure if there's UPE it's the article subject as you have done is very harmful since we do not know and there are plenty of cases where it is not. Nil Einne (talk) 10:23, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Richard Wood (Australian politician), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Advertiser.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Louisa Wall

Hi The Drover's Wife, I noticed that you reversed my edit] to the New Zealand politician Louisa Wall's article. I don't understand what was wrong with my edit. All I did was add a reputable media source documenting Lousia Wall's involvement with the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China along with a media statement that she and fellow member Simon O'Connor made in December 2020. This was meant to complement the Twitter post and IPAC webpage. Pleas explain what I did wrong and feel free to suggest ways of addressing this problem. Andykatib (talk) 09:06, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Seniors United

Hi The Drover's Wife. I note that you reverted a recent edit of mine to Seniors United Party of Australia. I'd like to invite you to discuss it on the article's talk page. Thank you. DilatoryRevolution (talk) 23:02, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi The Drover's Wife. Thank you for your contribution to the above talk page. I have replied to your comments and I'd like to invite you to continue the discussion on there. Thank you. --DilatoryRevolution (talk) 03:55, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi The Drover's Wife. Thank you for your further contribution to the above talk page. I have replied to your comments and I'd like to invite you to continue the discussion on there. I am keen to resolve this dispute as, whatever perspective is taken, the article as it stands does not currently reflect the nature of the subject. Thank you. --DilatoryRevolution (talk) 08:28, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Women in Green October 2022 Good Article Editathon

Hello The Drover's Wife:

WikiProject Women in Green is holding a month-long Good Article Editathon event in October 2022!

Running from October 1 to 31, 2022, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) editathon event – Wildcard Edition! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to any and all women and women's works during the event period. Want to improve an article about a Bollywood actress? Go for it. A pioneering female scientist? Absolutely. An award-winning autobiography by a woman? Yes! GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to receive a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.

We hope to see you there!

Alanna the Brave (talk) & Goldsztajn (talk) 23 September 2022

You are receiving this message as a member of the WikiProject Women in Green. You can remove yourself from receiving notifications here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:35, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Oops

Hello, re this edit summary: GNOSA and NOWSA sound exactly the same with my screen reader. Thanks for the fix; I guess you could call it recklessness on my part. Graham87 07:54, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited George Sangster (politician), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Record.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Warning about edit warring

Your recent editing history at Ruby Tandoh shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. George Ho (talk) 22:48, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. George Ho (talk) 23:13, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 11

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

James Laurence Murphy

added a link pointing to Record

Tom Corrigan (Australian politician)

added a link pointing to Record

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Philip Salmon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Independent.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Your approach to others, especially with "retired" tag

I don't know what you have been hoping to achieve, especially with the "Retired" tag in your user page, despite your recent activities. But as the saying goes, "you win some, you lose some". If you're trying to act like you're 100% correct and I'm 100% wrong, then I don't know whether you've succeeded or not. Regardless, this and the two of us clashing each other and unable to agree with each other make me wonder whether our collaboration together will be no longer possible.

Speaking of "Retired", are you actually "retired" as claimed in your user page? If so, then why have you continued editing articles more often? Why not "semi-retired" instead? George Ho (talk) 09:01, 27 November 2022 (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) 01:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mark Last King, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Evening News.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Colour coding for members lists

Hello. You have just reverted two of my recent updates, the first of which I am very grateful for, I had not noticed the party name change, and am also bad at fixing redirects, so your fix was very much appreciated, thank you kindly.

The second revert however I am a bit more puzzled by removing the colour coding I had done for a Western Australian list. I was working off of the basic format laid out from the NSW members lists, and based on colour coding I had also seen on many US state lists, and had assumed adding colour coding for the other Australian states would be useful. However if this is not allowed or welcome, should I revert the other Western Australian ones, and does NSW need to be changed as well. I just want to make sure I am not drifting too far from policy or style manual, I genuinely thought the colouring would make the lists easier to read? Dauwenkust (talk) 04:34, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited North Melbourne Town Hall, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Standard.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

G'day

G'day TDW, hope you are having a great break and had a good Xmas. Thanks for all your work on South Australian pollies. As I mentioned recently when we were discussing Ernest Roberts, I wanted to share that I am on a bit of a mission to improve bio articles on SA pollies who served. I currently have Jack Critchley at GAN. Even though I've got a couple of pollies to FA in the past (Bill Denny and Arthur Blackburn, I'm not sure how much interest there will be in some of these other guys from WP Military history members as in some cases their military service is incidental rather than the basis of their notability. I'd appreciate it if you would consider taking a look at any that pique your interest when they appear for review. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 19:18, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year, The Drover's Wife!

Happy New Year!

The Drover's Wife,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 12:07, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 12:07, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Ruby Tandoh

On 11 January 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ruby Tandoh, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that when baker Ruby Tandoh (pictured) publicly came out, she mocked critics who suggested that she had romanced a male contest judge? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ruby Tandoh. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Ruby Tandoh), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 00:02, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 19,804 views (1,650.3 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of January 2023 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Fred Stacey.png

The file File:Fred Stacey.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused, superseded by File:Fred_Stacey.jpg.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 13:18, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:43, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

WikiProject Women in Green June 2023 Good Article Editathon notification

Hello The Drover's Wife:

WikiProject Women in Green is holding a month-long Good Article Editathon event in June 2023!

Running from June 1 to 30, 2023, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) editathon event – another Wildcard Edition! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to any and all women and women's works during the event period. Want to improve an article about a Bollywood actress? Go for it. A pioneering female climate scientist? Absolutely. An award-winning book or film by a woman? Yes! GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to receive a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.

We hope to see you there!

Alanna the Brave (talk)

You are receiving this message as a member of the WikiProject Women in Green. You can remove yourself from receiving notifications here.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Town halls in New South Wales

A tag has been placed on Category:Town halls in New South Wales indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:17, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

August 2023 Good Article Nominations backlog drive

Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive
August 2023 Backlog Drive: On 1 August, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. (t · c) buidhe 05:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Women in Green GA Editathon October 2023 - Around the World in 31 Days

Hello The Drover's Wife:

WikiProject Women in Green is holding a month-long Good Article Edit-a-thon event in October 2023!

Running from October 1 to 31, 2023, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) edit-a-thon event with the theme Around the World in 31 Days! All experience levels welcome. Never worked on a GA project before? We'll teach you how to get started. Or maybe you're an old hand at GAs – we'd love to have you involved! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to women and women's works (e.g., books, films) during the event period. We hope to collectively cover article subjects from at least 31 countries (or broader international articles) by month's end. GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to earn a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.

We hope to see you there!

Alanna the Brave (talk) 00:53, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

You are receiving this message as a member of the WikiProject Women in Green. You can remove yourself from receiving notifications here.

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) 00:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:2018 Commonwealth Games Australia netball team roster

Template:2018 Commonwealth Games Australia netball team roster has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 22:37, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

March 2024 GAN backlog drive

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)