Hi, in Talk:Housefly you said that some of the images weren't of houseflies. Unfortunately, it's not clear to me which pictures you referred to when you said "the first" etc. Could you clarify? Thanks a lot, AxelBoldt 22:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that could have been a bit clearer. The first was the image in the infobox, and the second and third the images in the main body of the article, but some of these images have changed, and I think the infobox image is correct now. The only image I think could be wrong is the one for the copulating flies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Houseflies.jpg Amaurea 06:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, these do look different. Do you think they might be Sarcophaga carnaria? AxelBoldt 15:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as I said in Talk:Housefly, I think this probably is Sarcophaga carnaria [1], but I don't know much more about flies than the average person, so I am not very confident about this. Amaurea 04:01, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Amaurea! Thanks for contacting me. I've raised the issue on the Wikipedia-l mailing list, where it's received a much bigger public response and is actually being debated. I'm still wary, though, that a lot of people seem to be going along with the stable versions proposal without knowing too much about it, and the proponents of it just say "well, it's not a significant change". You can read the public debate at Wikipedia-l mailing list archive and if you want to contribute to the discussion, you're welcome to post to the mailing list. Together we can make a difference! Ronline ✉ 07:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, unfortunately the camp which advocates a more closed Wikipedia is gaining a lot of foothold recently, particularly after the Siegenthaler media controversy. That's why it probably wouldn't be good to hold a vote. However, by making our voice heard, we can not only convince others but also tell the people out there that there is considerable opposition to this. I think that if, for example, in a straw poll, stable versions wins by a slim majority such as 60%, it may not be implemented (since 40% is too large an opposition). And yes, I fully agree with you in terms of readers and editors. There is so much overlap, and editors must also be respected, not just used as workers who will generate what will then be a closed encyclopedia. A lot of us have come to contribute our time and knowledge here in the hope that not only will Wikipedia be free as in free distribution, but will always remain open for anyone to edit. UPDATE: As to posting in a threaded fashion on mailing lists, it's to do with your mail client. If you use a service like Hotmail or Yahoo, they don't support threads (which is why I switched to Gmail). I know for sure that Gmail uses threads (in which case all emails on a common subject are grouped into one thread). I don't know about POP3 clients like Outlook - I think they support it too. However, if you only joined the list now, then even thread-supporting services won't work, since you wouldn't be getting any digests/feeds from the mailing list. I think your best bet is simply to break the thread structure, since it's already getting too long. Ronline ✉ 13:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Amaurea - your argument on your talk-page was great! I think you're a very good writer, and your text gets very much to the point, and makes for a very well-supported case against stable versions, argued with a great deal of logic. Magnus Manske, the person who implemented stable versions in the next MediaWiki release stated that he does want more community consensus on this, so hopefully we will have a strong case. Ronline ✉ 08:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the number of articles of >AEQ quality is far too small to make any significant dent in the overall rate of recruitment of new editors. At present, there are 848 former featured articles, out of a total of 887,508 articles on Wikipedia. That is less than 1/1000. If every one of the former featured articles was protected (which is an overestimate, since some of them may have prospects of new developments in the near future, and others may not be >AEQ any longer), there would be no visible effect on Wikipedia's rate of growth. Furthermore, there is only one new featured article per day, while the number of newly created articles every day is far higher. Thus, although the number of protected articles would go up, the total number of articles would go up much faster - with the end result that the protected articles would represent a declining fraction of the total number of articles, and their effect on Wikipedia's rate of growth would get ever smaller. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 23:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Amaurea! I was wondering what you think about the structure of a Wikipedia:Ombudsman, that would seek to protect the community against misuse of powers/questionable conduct of admins and the ArbCom. Thanks, Ronline ✉ 09:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You have written:

"By marking a version of an article as stable, and presenting that version to normal visitors, we are breaking down the coupling between the number of readers and the number of editors."

The thing is: we won't be doing that! We'll show the most up to date version of the article, and note the most stable version. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the definition of a page, I'm going by Wikipedia:What is an article, particularly the bit about what Special:Statistics uses (in the main namespace, not a redirect, has one outbound internal link). I have the query/code written, and just wanted to pass the format by you. I added a bit more information, primarily to make it easier to double-check the data for mistakes on my part.

Columns:

1. timestamp of the very first revision in history for that page... the format is yyyymmddhhmmss
2. page_id... should be a stable number over time
3. article title

I sorted it by page_id, just because that's easiest for me, which means it's not sorted by timestamp. The first couple of lines in the report will be:

20011011201847 12 Anarchism
20011212041218 25 Autism
20011212061605 39 Albedo
20020225155115 43 Abu_Dhabi
20010705143522 290 A
20010803163502 303 Alabama
20011002165631 305 Achilles
20011104022416 307 Abraham_Lincoln
20011201031855 308 Aristotle
20010512040455 309 An_American_in_Paris
20010424211432 324 Academy_Award
20011027203113 334 International_Atomic_Time
20010302211735 336 Altruism
20010427002709 337 Ang_Lee
20010930014301 339 Ayn_Rand
20011121112419 340 Alain_Connes
20010225034339 344 Allan_Dwan
20010628145508 349 Economy_of_Algeria
20011031233124 358 Algeria
20010227032841 359 Characters_in_Atlas_Shrugged
20010620225819 362 Technology_in_Atlas_Shrugged

I have a bit of doubt about the data... I'm going off the first recorded revision in history... I don't think that's always 100% accurate. For instance, looking at the first version of Anarchism, it doesn't look like it was really the first version. Though I don't know much about the accuracy of the data from the early days. Maybe it doesn't matter to you, I don't know.

Anyway, say the word and I'll go ahead and run the full report, it will probably take 30 - 60 minutes to run. --Interiot 23:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, this is the first recorded revision, though it's not on January 15, 2001, so there must be some data lost from the beginning? The second revision I can find is this, showing that Jimbo clearly believes in listcruft. ;) It's a bit eerie looking back in time. Anyway, the report is done, see here, it's 38MB uncompressed, and lists 932500 pages. I'm not sure if that means it differs from Special:Statistics or not, since that lists 920k. --Interiot 00:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any graphical output yet? Even if it's extremely preliminary, just having one image you update as you figure more things out would probably be useful. --Interiot 17:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting. :) I see now why you wanted the fine-grained data. Does the "actual size" really follow an exponential curve that closely (for the last three years anyway)? Perhaps it would be better to use a logarithmic scale for the vertical "number of articles" axis. It's eerie if the growth is that consistent though. Also, do you know what events coincided with the two growth spurts in the first few years? I'm interested in wikipedia early history, and I guess there are a few possibilities, like 9/11? Or spamming?

re: filledcurves... I had wanted to modify the graphs at the bottom of this to have the area below the red line be filled in. I actually have "filledcurves y1=0" turned on right now, but the graph isn't filled in. For what it's worth, you can see the gnuplot commands by searching for "set terminal png" here. --Interiot 18:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like the log version better, because 1) unlike the yearly-%-change one, it's cumulative, so it doesn't show the up-then-down noise nearly so much, and 2) it shows the deviation better than the non-logarithmic one. If you used that one, you'd probably have to use "set xmin" and truncate some of the lower (earlier) data from the logarithmic chart. Another alternative would be cummulate the yearly-%-change graph a bit more... eg. use a longer timespan to calculate each point. Because the up/down cyan noise really doesn't give the right impression of what's happening. Very interesting though. :)

Oh, you're right, the face example isn't working on the toolserver. [2] [3] How odd. gnuplot -V reports "gnuplot 4.0 patchlevel 0" on the toolserver. --Interiot 18:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just think the cyan noise is incongruous with the other graph that shows how closely the data fits with the logarithmic fit. The noise gives the wrong initial impression. The only possible reason it's so noisy is because it's displaying too much detail in %-changed data. If you zoomed way in on that graph, you would see a very very noisy data set, with an up-spike followed by a down-spike, but that's deceiving because an up-spike and down-spike cancel out to be a flat line. (that's not always the case, but the log-fit graph shows that, for this data, that's almost uniformly true) --Interiot 19:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work!--Dan 18:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits! I hope that you can continue to do heavy editing to that article in the future. It needs some love from someone who knows a lot about the phenomenon. I intend to work on it as well, but I'm still committed to first working out the speedrun article first. Let's try and get those dispute tags out of the way at some point... —Michiel Sikma (Kijken maar niet aanraken) 16:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do what I can, but I don't have any speed running experience myself, actually; what I know is what I've gathered from lurking on the nesvideos forums, so it would be nice if someone more into it could fill in the gaps in my knowlege. I agree that those disputed tags are an eyesore. Amaurea 09:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of Internet Relay Chat clients. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you publish the sourcecode producing this diagram?--Kopiersperre (talk) 18:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to prevent an edit war over the content you would like to add. Please make it clear in the talk page what your edits add content wise and why previous concerns regarding original research do not apply. My impression is the content you wish to add has already been discussed at length, and the current (pre-edit) wording is a result of that discussion. Millionmice (talk) 23:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus or a result of a discussion. Paid editing won. Martin.uecker (talk) 22:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Could you reconsider your edit removing the scrollbars from the table of opinion polling results on the page "Opinion polling for the Greek legislative election, 2015"? When the scrollbars were still in place, they kept the column headers in place even when you were scrolling down to older polls. That way, even when you were looking at a year-old poll, it was immediately visible which column belonged to which party - the column headers were kind of like a frozen row in a spreadsheet. That made use of the table a lot easier, to be honest! Consider this just as feedback from a user. Cheers, --No-itsme (talk) 06:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping the header visible was the good part of that approach. Though on narrow displays (at least mine), the colunns didn't actually align, so it didn't work that well. Such scrollbars also make it harder to navigate the table. And I'm not sure what happens when you try to print it, which is an important use case for the page. But it's not like I own the page, so do what you wish. Amaurea (talk) 09:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know you don't own the page, but I didn't want to just revert the change, and wasn't entirely sure how to re-apply only the scrollbars. And you do make some good arguments. --No-itsme (talk) 15:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Amaurea; thanks for clarifying which data was used for File:Iceland opinion polls.svg, although referring to a list in English-language Wikipedia (which also might be subject to changes) certainly isn't ideal for using that figure in German-language Wikipedia, but I would accept it there. It's a nice figure and can be helpful. However, as Friedel V pointed out on the discussion page, there is another issue with the figure - the confusing use of party abbreviations. German-language Wikipedia uses the official party letters; for example, the Independence Party (Sjálfstæðisflokkurinn) has the letter D, and the Social Democratic Alliance (Samfylkingin) has the letter S. Your figure is using inofficial/invented abbreviations that are used in English-language Wikipedia's table, such as S for the Independence Party, which is utterly confusing in a context where "S" is otherwise used (as the official party letter) for a different party. So, I have removed the figure again for the time being, to prevent confusing readers, but would like to ask: Maybe you could (for German-language Wikipedia and maybe other Wikipedia language versions using the Icelandic party letters) generate a version of your figure using party letters instead of English Wikipedia's abbreviations? Then I would be glad to see it back in de-WP. Gestumblindi (talk) 12:21, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Amaurea. 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]

You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Hello, Amaurea. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 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]

Hello, Amaurea. 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]

Greetings and felicitations. I was just browsing the Sagittarius A* article, and noticed that your last edit to it broke the named reference "Gillessen", apparently because it is defined twice. I thought you'd like to know so that you can fix it. :-) —DocWatson42 (talk) 03:47, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DocWatson42: Thanks for letting me know. It should be fixed now. Amaurea (talk) 03:57, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 04:05, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited S0–102, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page VLT (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:05, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That table indeed has some useful information, but could probably use some trimming. There are entries with zero content, and it's not clear that huge a table is needed. Perhaps the table could be moved off to another article (Sgr A* star cluster?), while leaving information for only the most relevant stars in the main article. I'd suggest that the three stars with articles of their own (S2, S55, S62) and maybe S4711 (if you can find some information for it) might be relevant to the overall Sgr A* article.

As a secondary comment, calling an editor a "deletionist" violates WP:NPA, so be careful. Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 02:28, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Started a discussion on Talk:Sagittarius A*. Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 02:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tarl N.: I agree that it could make sense to move most of the table to a separate page. These stars are called the "S-stars", so that would make sense as a page. The most notable stars should still be left, though - maybe those that have Wikipedia articles?

Thanks for the warning too. You're right. The large asymmetry in effort it takes to create something vs. delete it does not make it productive to slap labels on each other. Amaurea (talk) 02:41, 14 October 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) 01:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of countries by total road tunnel length 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 countries by total road tunnel length until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:41, 17 December 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) 00:01, 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) 00:20, 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) 00:22, 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) 00:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]