User talk:Wormcast/Archive 1

Archive 1

John Pitcairn, Jr.

Hi, Wormcast. I dropped you another note on my talkpage [1]. Anne Teedham (talk) 20:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Linking surnames

I see you've been linking surnames. I've reverted them as they are not in accordance with the manual of style MOS:LEAD, and in any case, I don't think linking surnames is very useful. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 16:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I suppose that you are referring to the statement "Use as few links as possible before and in the bolded title". If you wouldn't mind, please repeat your comments on my (as of yet unanswered) inquiry about the appropriateness of this practice here at the WikiProject Anthroponymy talk page -- Wormcast (talk) 17:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, that is exactly what I am referring to. The general practice is to provide the wikilink later in the text. My personal opinion is the link to the surname isn't that helpful, but as I am not a member of WikiProject Anthroponymy, I'll leave them to to answer questions on their talk page. If all you want to do is remove the orphan tag, perhaps you can document the reason for the lack of links in the article talk page and remove the orphan tag. -- Whpq (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The Lord's New Church Which Is Nova Hierosolyma - Why Writings seen as Third Testament?

Wormcast,

The change made on:

02:51, 24 February 2009 Wormcast (talk | contribs) (10,251 bytes) (rephrased to minimize theological terminology in 'history' section; restored full name of Gen Church next to common name)

contains incorrect wording, which conveys incorrect information.

The original text is correct.

The change made does not say what the original text says. Additionally, the change seems to confuse the historical time line, since the Doctrinal Principles of the Lord's New Church did not exist yet, since the Church did not exist yet. The Dutch Society was part of the General Church when all the disagreements occurred.

The following contains the incorrect text:

"The General Church placed paramount authority on the writings of Swedenborg, but Groeneveld went beyond this; he proposed that Swedenborg's theological writings were nothing less than a Third Testament, and as such, according to the Church's principles of doctrine, must have an inner, spiritual meaning."

Specifically, this text is incorrect: "according to the Church's principles of doctrine, must have an inner, spiritual meaning."

To be accurate, the text should state something like this: "according to the theological writings of Swedenborg, the Word of God must have an inner, spiritual meaning, to be the Word of God."

The basis for this belief of Groeneveld and the other adherents to the Dutch Magazine De Hemelsche Leer is FOUND in the Theological Writings of Swedenborg, which very specifically teaches WHAT the QUALITY of the Word of God is. The Writings teach that the Word of God HAS an INTERNAL SENSE.

So if one sees the Theological Writings of Swedenborg as the Word, It MUST HAVE AN INTERNAL SENSE according to the WRITINGS of Swedenborg. So it needs to be stated that the WRITINGS are the basis of this belief, NOT the doctrinal principles of a Church that did not exist during this controversy in the General Church.

Thanks, Sburleigh —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sburleigh (talk • contribs) 17:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I have updated the text to reflect the distinction. A subtle point! - Best, Wormcast (talk) 21:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the update. - Best, Sburleigh (talk • contribs) 1 May 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.240.216.99 (talk) 23:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Christie - US Attorney

No - I'm stumped. I tried to get it to work for more than an hour HerbertMMarx (talk) 02:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be a known issue: see Template_talk:Infobox_officeholder/doc#Multiple_offices Wormcast (talk) 11:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the update HerbertMMarx (talk) 15:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

San Salvador image

Great, thanks! Very obscure :) Although as a separate issue, the dates don't line up.. my references have the explosion on the San Salvador happening on July 31, but the painting's description says July 22. I'll look into that. Sancho 18:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Rafael Buenaventura

Please look there. Bone1234 (talk) 02:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Jivamukti Yoga Page

Dear Wormcast, Why are you changing the my edits to the Jivamukti yoga page? I realize that you have done a lot of work on this page. Perhaps we can work together so I don't keep adding to it and you take things off. I know that we are both motivated to make it as informative as possible. Perhaps we could communicate more openly. Best, Vixheny — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vixhenry (talk • contribs) 02:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello Vixhenry,

First, thank you for your work on the article - I am glad to see other people getting involved, and love to collaborate.

About the deletions: first and foremost, you need to edit in a neutral point of view (see WP:NPOV). A large part of this policy is not stating opinions as facts. Statements like "(Gannon and Life are...) bringing the ancient teachings of yoga into a modern context without dumbing them down" is ultimately just your opinion. The use of expressions like "revolutionary" or "highly-sophisticated" is not NPOV - others may (and do) disagree.

Another thing to keep in mind is the policy "No original research" (see WP:NOR): the claims made need to at least be attributable (and ideally attributed) to reliable, published sources in order to be included.

Also, as I indicated in my edit summary, I feel that the "Innovations" section reads as a (lengthy!) list of what Life and Gannon have done, not as a list of new concepts or approaches introduced by Jivamukti Yoga. As it is written, it should be included in an article or articles on them. It is also too long for the current state of the article, and imo for the notability of the topic. We should not lose track of the reality that this is a rather minor topic in the grand scheme of things - what percentage of the world practices jivamukti, and how many of them don't live in or around NYC?

I recommend writing a shorter, more neutrally-phrased version of the section that includes just innovations that have been recognized in (non-jivamukti) published sources.

Best regards, Wormcast (talk) 15:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Wormcast. I will do that regarding the innovations section. I am getting my information from what has been written about them. It isn't true that Jivamukti is only New York centered. Its bigger in Germany and Japan than it is here. I have been to Jivamukti Events in Europe and there are people from every continent, the middle east, etc and it seems bigger there. In the US, the teacher trainings have more foreign students than American, with a decent representation from Latin American as well. Its growing in Africa both north and south.

I appreciate your help. As it matters to me that the site is done well, can you please let me know about things that you take off in the future?

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vixhenry (talk • contribs) 16:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Jivamukti Yoga logo

Hello Vixhenry - concerning the higher-res Jivamukti logo that you uploaded and substituted into the article: it is not clear to me how you are able to authorize the release of this image under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. This is a trademarked image, owned by Jivamukti, andn can only be released by Jivamukti. The low-res image that I had uploaded and used was done so under the very limited fair use Wikipedia:Non-free content status (see also Wikipedia:Logos), and is justified for use specifically because no other similar image CAN be found...

Wikipedia needs to be very careful about trademark infringement, so unless you are a legal representative of Jivamukti Yoga, Inc. and are releasing its trademarked logo into the public domain (a situation which I higher doubt is the case) then I will have to revert the image to the old one and refer your uploaded logo for speedy deletion. Wormcast (talk) 10:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC) (copied from User_talk:Vixhenry)

Dear Wormcast, You may "highly doubt its the case" that I have permission from Jivamukti, Inc. to use the logo, but you're wrong. I do have permission and obtained the logo directly from Jivamukti Inc. Vixhenry (talk) 13:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Vixhenry, you state on the image page that you are the logo's creator and owner. But here you are saying that you received permission from the copyright holder (Jivamukti, Inc.) to use the image. These are not at all the same thing. Please update the image page to clarify this. --Wormcast (talk) 05:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Jivamukti yoga logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Jivamukti yoga logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Skier Dude,

I removed the orphan tag for the Jivamukti yoga logo file pending clarification of the authorization rights of the uploader of the image that replaced it in the Jivamukti Yoga article - basically, I don't understand how a trademarked logo can be released under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license by anyone other than the corporation itself. I am awaiting User:Vixhenry's response and did not want the logo deleted in the process. Wormcast (talk) 01:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fred Hiatt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hardball (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) 11:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Gracias!

Thanks for the barnstar, Wormcast. I also edited the deferred prosecution article today, so that I can better understand and describe Christie's use of that technique. Will get to it later. Cheers, Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Here be dragons

I saw the article in The Charlotte Observer but when adding to Wikipedia went to the online article which you did. The additions had not been made to the articles globe and Hunt-Lenox Globe, so I made them. If you think my addition can be improved, you're welcome to do so.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Germantown

Nice work on Germantown. Thanks! Richard Apple (talk) 03:50, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure - hardly the boring little town. Wormcast (talk) 03:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your tireless work on Germantown, Philadelphia Richard Apple (talk) 18:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013

Hello, I'm Some jerk on the Internet. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Unassisted childbirth because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. The reverted edit can be found here. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 17:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

?? Illustrating an article with relevant images is usually considered constructive... -Wormcast (talk) 17:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

March 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Pat Toomey may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• title=Toomey backs ban on sex bias in workplace|publisher=Philly.com|date=November 7, 2013}}</ref>]. Following the vote, Toomey stated that he has long believed that more legal protections are
• {| class="wikitable" style="margin:0.5em ; font-size:95%"

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Author linking in citations

Hey Wormcast, I noticed you linked an author at the Vela Pulsar article. If you'll look at this diff, that contains a seamless method of linking that won't disrupt any metadata. Cheers! — Huntster (t @ c) 18:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Huntster. Ugh, now to fix ten others... Wormcast (talk) 18:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Chris Kyle

Care to have a look at the latest issues being discussed and give some input? BP OMowe (talk) 22:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Katie Hopkins

Hi. Thanks for your effort to add sources to this. WP:BLPSOURCES precludes using tabloid sources on articles about living people, so I have removed these as unusable. --John (talk) 21:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry - it's somewhat hard for me to tell the difference when it comes to the UK media... Wormcast (talk) 00:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Wormcast, this is Wmcfadden The article is awaiting review. I'm fairly new to wikipedia, but I believe you can find it here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Karen_E._Nelson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmcfadden (talk • contribs) 23:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah - thanks Wmcfadden.Wormcast (talk) 17:11, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of List of war veterans associated with neoconservativism for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of war veterans associated with neoconservativism is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of war veterans associated with neoconservativism until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. And Adoil Descended (talk) 20:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

June 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Notable neoconservatives who are war veterans. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. The AfD tag needs to remain even though the article's name was changed. And Adoil Descended (talk) 04:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Stephen H. Behnke

You opposed my speedy deletion tag on the Stephen H. Behnke article. Even though your links show he might be notable, the article itself offers nothing of value re his notability. Why don't you take a stab at improving the article a bit - by providing a bit more context about him and the links you posted on the talk page? GLG GLG (talk) 05:15, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I only posted the material on talk because I currently don't have time to work on the article, but did not want to see it deleted as the subject is definitely notable. It didn't seem fair to me to add a bunch of content to the article about the current scandal whirling about Behnke without also having material on the rest of his life and career - something I wasn't prepared to do. Perhaps in a while, if no one else takes on the task. Wormcast (talk) 14:23, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fee-fi-fo-fum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gaelic. 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) 09:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 25 August

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Fee-fi-fo-fum page, your edit caused a duplicate page number error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 16:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

December 2015

Hello. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Adolf Hitler. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Dr. K. 06:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

How do you figure, Dr. K? I haven't reverted anything at all. -Wormcast (talk) 16:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, I have reviewed the page history. I was entirely unaware of the previous edit/revert cycle. That said, the current claim is made by a respected professor of history, is supported by newly unearthed primary records, and has been reported in multiple major publications. It is not really the fringe theory it once was. But as this Hitler stuff is really not my bag, I don't care to get involved further. Perhaps you would be so good as to pass these points along... -Wormcast (talk) 16:48, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that Wormcast. Your edit was close to the previous revert by one of the regulars of the article and it was using the same reference as the previous addition. Also the editor who added it the first time described the condition in their edit-summary and the editor who removed it called it a fringe theory. That led me to believe that an edit-war was going on. In any case, I am not interested in the subject enough to participate in any discussion on the talkpage. But from what I have observed on that talkpage, this subject is a perennial one which keeps being added to the article only to be reverted soon after by the regulars. Best regards and Best of the Season to you. Dr. K. 18:46, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

No worries, Dr. K and a happy holiday to you as well. -Wormcast (talk) 19:55, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your understanding Wormcast. I have deleted the warning because of your explanation. All the best to you. Dr. K. 03:54, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 9 March

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the John Caspar Wister page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of John Allison (physicist) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article John Allison (physicist) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Allison (physicist) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Wormcast. 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)

Improper editing

You recently deleted prose from an article. Your edit summary read "unsourced personal opinion", but the prose you removed not only explicitly named the publication, but it also textually identified the article as an editorial and supplied extensive direct quotes.

Ordinarily this wouldn't seem worthy of comment, but the utter carelessness/impropriety of the edit, and the fact that the change was snuck in with no discussion at an article that's otherwise been quite stable for years, are very troubling. Had I not happened to notice the edit purely by chance, it's likely nobody would have ever noticed the removal.

Anyway, it could not have been much more clear that the removed material was not unsourced. So in future, please don't do things that you're obviously not supposed to do. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 20:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Look, I acknowledge that the content should not have been removed. I have restored it, with minor phrasing edits. But I object to you insinuation of some kind of skulduggery on my part. While working to improve a start-class article (as I believe my other edits show) I came across a snippet of pure opinion with only the name of a small newspaper as a source. I did a google search on the quote and did not turn anything up, so I removed it. Clearly I must have made an error in my (1 am) search as I just now was able to locate the original editorial. I have gone ahead and inserted a proper citation. You could have done the same with far less effort than this post cost you. Wormcast (talk) 07:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

You made an incredibly obvious unforced error because of utter carelessness, the only reason anybody noticed the removal of content was because the editor who wrote it in the first place happened to stop by a decade later and noticed it was missing, and your response is to lash out at me and offer an excuse that's not really an excuse because it doesn't do anything to explain or justify the conduct; and you also insist, quite contrary to reason, that I could have simply fixed it myself with less effort than it took to drop you a curt reminder, which, in your mind, I had no right or reason to give?

Keep on trucking then, dude. Don't let the haters get to you. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 17:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, when you explain it in such reasonable and diplomatic terms, I suppose that I have no choice but to agree with you. A parting fact check for you, my friend: your behavior here demonstrates that rudeness is [not] strictly prohibited here on Wikipedia. Wormcast (talk) 23:31, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Wormcast. 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, Wormcast. 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)

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) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (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) 00:09, 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) 00:36, 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) 00:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)