User talk: ElijahBosley/Archive 1 User talk: ElijahBosley/Archive 2

Picture of the day

Great Yarmouth Town Hall

Photograph credit: Detroit Publishing Company; restored by Adam Cuerden

• Archive
• More featured pictures

Hi ElijahBosley,

Benjamin Wittes and I are writing an article on lawfare, Wikipedia, and the Lawfare blog- and we would like to ask you a few questions about your elimination of earlier edits on the lawfare page. How would be best to reach you?

Thanks, Stephanie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleutert21 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stephanie--I make it a policy to discus Wikipedia edits only on Wikipedia. Either on the article talk page, or if you wanted to try revisions in your Sandbox and invite me to comment I would be happy to do so. I am not sure what "elimination of earlier edits" I did on the Lawfare page, though. Sure it was me? I generally tend not to simply delete things. Rather I look for sources, footnotes, and try to add them. Only if I can't find support for something do I consider deleting it, and then--usually I give advance notice on the talk page to invite editor support for the decision. Maybe if you told me what specifically you wanted to add, I could help. Best wishes,ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 20:07, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ElijahBosley thanks for the quick response. The edits I'm referring to are from June 9, 2012 and had to do with adding content to Lawfare's Wikipage and using the Lawfare blog as a source. You had removed them and written:

-Blogs are not encyclopedic, and articles are not venues to advertise them. At most this blog gets a reference in External links

-Delete advertisement for blog--newspapers or scholarly articles only please. These are respected scholars, so find a respected source for this

I was wondering:

1. Do you ever allow blogs to be used as sources - and if so what is your criteria for using blogs

2. Why doesn't the Lawfare blog fit in this category (since Wiki policy on blogs says allows for blogs to be sources if written by professional researchers writing in their field).

3. Why is a scholar who chooses to write on a blog less reputable than the same scholar writing an oped in a newspaper.

Thanks in advance.

Stephanie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleutert21 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Stephanie--yes that was my edit, back in 2012. The distinction is between edited and unedited blogs. A blog on the New York Times website, or Huffington Post for instance, has to pass an outside editor's scrutiny. It is more dependable for being vetted. My own personal blog, or my best friend's blog, or even a professor I deeply respect--does not have outside scrutiny. No matter how expert the blogger, if nobody else has reviewed the work, best not to cite it. In the case of a professional researcher writing in their field, normally that researcher would have a sheaf of articles and bundles of books to cite, and need not resort to citing a blog. That said, we are increasingly seeing "vetted" blogs accepted as reliable. So who knows, under Wikipedia's evolving standards maybe the one to which you refer would now pass muster. To look at the criteria involved, cf. Self-published and questionable sources which--while questionable--may sometimes merit inclusion. ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 21:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS--here is an example of a blog which--even though not associated with a newspaper, or edited in the conventional sense--nonetheless would be reliable and notable enough to warrant citing on Wikipedia. Dr. Jeff Masters' Weather Underground Blog. It is widely read by fellow expert meteorologists who often contribute comments to it, so it is "vetted" in that sense by expert outsiders and considered reliable.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 13:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Got it - thanks so much for the explanation! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleutert21 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - Ben published your response to our piece on the Lawfare blog. You can read it here: http://www.lawfareblog.com/2013/05/wikipedia-volunteer-elijah-bosley-responds/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleutert21 (talk • contribs) 13:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 13:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: John Norseen and Lockheed Martin

I'm beside myself trying to update information that I believe to be very relevent. It looks to me like several users who "hang out" at "ANI:Fringe" are working together to remove well sourced, valid, on topic material which shows the state of military research into thought identification. Outside comments would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Damonthesis (talk) 19:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[bracket bot alert deleted: problem fixed.]

[disambig bot alert deleted: false positive]

[moved to be posted on Deerfield talk page]

America's biggest problem? I agree it is an important issue but my sense is the Constitution needs a revamp. Big problem: people are no longer citizens, preventing an adequate solution to violence and terrorism. My two cents.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your post. So it looks like you too have a book that needs to be written.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 16:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I suppose. How is yours coming along? If you need feedback, let me know. Right now I am writing a sci-fi novel which I hope to finish soon.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• org/ Fifth Maine Regiment Museum] and the [[Umbrella Cover Museum]], among others.<ref>{{cite w]eb |url=http://www.peaksisland.info/business_listings.html |title=Peaks Island Businesses and

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:14, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Dennis Bratland. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Vectrix, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The appropriate place to discuss reliable citations is on the article's talk page. There is already some discussion there, so I will leave it at that.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 14:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Motorcycling WikiProject. Hopefully you have a good time, start many new articles and can contribute lots to the existing ones as we need that. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 21:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Electric motorcycles and scooters may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Esposizione Internazionale Ciclo, Motociclo & Accessori (EICMA) held annually in Milan.<ref>{{cite news |author=Robin Hartfiel |coauthors= |title= EICMA 2013: Inside the World's Largest

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:50, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Electric motorcycles and scooters, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wired (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) 08:55, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

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 "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 18:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

		The Civility Barnstar
		for your exceptionally graceful response to my criticism of your Civility proposal. Tlhslobus (talk) 12:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, many thanks for your Civility Barnstar to me. Actually given that my suggestion that I deserved a Barnstar was intended as an ironic but illustrative joke, and that I thought about deleting it as possibly being sarcastic to the point of incivility, it was probably one of the most undeserved Civility Barnstars on record, but I ain't complaining :) Incidentally, your new wording represents a huge improvement, though I fear I still have some reservations about it which I expect to post there eventually. Tlhslobus (talk) 12:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ironic? Oh? heh he. Thanks. Ironic or not a barnstar always brightens one's day.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 13:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ElijahBosley: I read some of your posts in the Identifying Reliable Sources talk page, and do so agree with you in many instances. It appears to me that sourcing is often at the root of many disputes, blocks, and bans. I believe it would serve WP well to update the reliable source criteria, and possibly even include a list of the top 25 unreliable and reliable sources with a neutral balance determined first by general consensus, and maybe followed by a 3/4 majority consensus by admins who are elected to determine the final outcome, or some other process that will assure neutrality. I hope I'm not overstepping my boundaries by posting my thoughts and suggestions here on your Talk page, but if I am, please don't hesitate to delete it. However, I do believe this topic is important enough for editors to seriously consider, and at least try to get some changes made. If you think it's something you'd be interested in discussing, you can post a Talkback on my page. Kind regards... Atsme☯ talk 19:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just a friendly suggestion. Please don't revert multiple edits all citing unspecified discussion when it's not immediately obvious where to find that discussion, as it doesn't foster consensus-building. As far as I can tell none of the issues I raised in my edit summaries have been discussed on the article talk page. Thanks. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ElijahBosley. You have new messages at Talk:Sweet Briar College.
Message added 18:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 18:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey - there's been a huge outcry by alums about the way Sweet Briar is being depicted as a finishing school on Wikipedia. Are you the person to discuss this with? Who are you? Thanks, [name deleted], Esq. Class of 1984---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.45.99.173 (talk) 19:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your inquiry. Discussion about article content belongs on its talk page, in this case here. I deleted identifying information from this post, and would suggest signing up for an an account for reasons discussed here. It's quick, free, protects your identity, and useful for the reasons there discussed. As for a direct connection to the subject of the article, a particular Wikipedia policy also is pertinent here. Best wishes, ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 21:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Women's college, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sweet Briar. 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) 08:56, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[transferred to talk page of article in question here]

Take it up on the talk page [1]...Modernist (talk) 19:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have granted rollback rights to your account. After a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, contact me and I will remove it. Good luck and thanks. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. Off to Rollback school.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 20:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only having 21 edits to my name doesn't prevent me from recognizing obvious trolls. Glad to see this user has a history and will continue to be blocked.Ladysif (talk) 23:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quite true. I agree about the edits in question. Merely the recourse seemed harsh, for a newbie editor. Only later did it come out that this was no newbie.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 13:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, I was working on an edit in the pending closure section, went to move it up to the main header and saw yours! Thanks!Ladysif (talk) 22:57, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I too was wondering, but this is from nearly 4 years ago, here! I quoted you on the subject in my edit summary. [2] - 220 of ^Borg 08:54, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Henry L. Stimson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Glacier National Park. 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) 09:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The equal advancement of all people by merit is a subject near & dear to me as my grandmother was the sociologist at Brown vs. Board of Education. I do believe that if discrimination is severe enough, as seems to be the case with the Dalit untouchables in India, that the desperate measure of tokenism is necessary to give some opportunity for equality. Tokenism has also had an extremely constructive result upon the police forces in Canada which it would be good if it could be emulated here in the United States. However, here in the United States, though there may exist isolated pockets of bigotry -& perhaps you even live & suffer in one, we are the land of opportunity. Only in rare & unusual circumstances can someone not either join the military or get on a bus to a place where equality of opportunity is the norm. (I'm also from Canada, I joined the U.S. Navy, and I live in Arizona which is a terrific place to be free of discrimination if you are black as evidenced by Mohammed Ali's residence here.) Tokenism undermines sociological minorities with permanent doubt about their abilities. Therefore, though it may have been a constructive policy once upon a time, it has since become a detriment here in the United States. If you make deletions, I will continue to add facts to support that Affirmative Action is a euphemism for tokenism, and that that tokenism is often to the unqualified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Prickett (talk • contribs) 16:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your view. Really such concerns belong on the Affirmative action page, not on the Euphamism page. The latter is only about grammar: whether a word or phrase is a euphamism. The Affirmative action page is the place to discuss the policy itself.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 16:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, you may be blocked from editing.

It is unacceptable to remove other people's comments in the talk page just because you have no objections yet do not like them, like you did in. Read WP rules. WP rules are best in the World to teach you constructiveness, mr. Dictator. --Javalenok (talk) 23:18, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. I was not aware I had removed a comment. I looked on the talk page: the comment cited above (here) is still there. Perhaps this refers to an edit I made--and then unmade realizing it was mistaken--in the page history here? In any event, I agree that one should not remove other people's comments. If I did so it was inadvertant.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 15:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the example you gave at the citing sources talk page. I did not know about the titles for bundled references. Abel (talk) 17:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Euphemism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Brooks. 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) 10:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	I award you this barnstar in recognition of your fine long-term work and curation of Sweet Briar College, during the time it was a matter of ongoing legal and public complexity. Softlavender (talk) 07:40, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kindness. A delightful Christmas surprise.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 15:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Enhanced interrogation techniques, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Salon. 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) 10:16, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

About these edits: [3] etc. It was part of a spree of copyvio content from a WP:CITESPAM spammer and sockdrawer. Mass reverts due to the spam and copyvios. Also the site had no sourcing or attributions. See the spam blacklist page for more details. Best, - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 21:30, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Z Electric Vehicle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Dominion Post. 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) 09:49, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ElijahBosley. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

hi, just checking if you've seen my response on the euphemism talk page? thanks best, F 217.151.98.11 (talk) 20:42, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. I suppose it was discourteous not to respond so I will go say something there.13:37, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I've proposed to rename Mind control to Brainwashing. I'm letting you know since you contributed to the article. Redddogg (talk) 23:39, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can cut down on some of the George Carlin stuff in the Euphemism page. But, euphemisms were something very near and dear to his heart in the fact he hated them. I also believe that too many common examples are not bad, but some are satisfactory to give the reader a sense of what they are. Kolby Wilkinson (talk) 03:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC) Kolby Wilkinson[reply]

Hello, ElijahBosley. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Whoa there! has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 23:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ElijahBosley. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ElijahBosley,

I believe the section "Origin of SERE techniques" to needs a rewrite; I suspect it's factually incorrect and misleading as currently written. I placed details and references on the talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Survival,_Evasion,_Resistance_and_Escape#%22Origin_of_SERE_techniques%22_appears_to_be_incorrect . Since you are the original author of that section and primary editor, could we discuss the concern?

Edward Barnard (talk) 13:26, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:24, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]