Hello and Welcome! I hope you like the place. --mav

Just a quick note of appreciation on you work at Atmosphere of Mars. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks from me Victuallers (talk) 12:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I nominated the Aftermath for a good article, and there are some suggestions on how to improve it to be so. I have done some of them, such as the references and clarification, but the main thing I think we need is images. If you want to look over the criteria and see what I have already done, the list is here. Thanks for all your work on this! Jeancey (talk) 19:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, bro. Yes, I also miss images, but I couldn't come up with a good source for related ones with compatible licensing.--Anders Feder (talk) 22:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anders Feder, could you address the remaining issues with regards to the GA article nomination, so that we can come to end with the review? Thanks and best regards, JCAla (talk) 08:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure.--Anders Feder (talk) 20:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, guys, please address the remaining issues with regards to the article, otherwise I won't be able to give it the GA status which would be a pity since it is an article with potential. The overlinking needs to be addressed or issue solved. I personally don't think it is overlinked, but you should solve the issue. Please find some more illustrations and address the remaining points with regards to broad coverage. Thanks. JCAla (talk) 09:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been having trouble finding the motivation, but I will get around to it ASAP. Thanks for bearing with the process :) --Anders Feder (talk) 10:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Anders Feder,

I just came across the happy iranian section on one of your pages which was such an accurate description to the sort of thing I have seen on some Wikipedia pages. Could I keep a version on one of my subpages? I will offcourse attribute it to yourself. I understand if you say no. Regards. Mbcap (talk) 19:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mbcap: I would be honored if you do.--Anders Feder (talk) 19:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mbcap (talk) 19:32, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Anders Feder,

Please could you advise me on how one goes about determining the reliability of a book published in a foreign country, especially if that country has a reputation for restricting the freedom of speech and freedom of expression. Also how does partisanship affect the way a book is used? I am asking these question in reference to the following book but general advice on any book of this nature would be appreciated:

• Husaini Tehrani, Muhammad Husain. "Imamology" Mashhad Mughaddas: Allama Tabatabaie

The citation does not identify the publisher but its partisanship is undeniable. The citation is used to make claims that a certain Shia book is respected by Sunni Muslims. Can we use this book to make claims about Sunni's view of a specific Shia book, in light of maintaining NPOV and using reliable sources? I would be grateful for your assistance. Mbcap (talk) 12:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mbcap: As as a matter of fact, I have come across that reference myself, and have been wondering the same thing. The citation given here gives a link to a (pay-walled) online e-book version here. The e-book page gives a link to a BibTeX file here. In the BibTeX file, the publisher is listed as "علامه طباطبایی", which is presumably(?) a reference to Allameh Tabataba'i University, which of course is directly controlled by the Iranian state. In my view, if that is indeed the publisher, it's neutrality is clearly questionable. For the time being, I think the only way to settle cases like these is to bring them to the WP:RSN. But it's extremely cumbersome given the preponderance of citations like this on Wikipedia, particularly because RSN frequently don't respond at all. In the future, I would like to see some kind of guideline that place much stricter limits on how sources like these can be used, if at all.--Anders Feder (talk) 08:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reply. Firstly can we delete the page, Allameh Tabataba'i University, to which you have posted a link to above. The entire page is a copy paste job of this website[[1]]. I am not familiar on how to delete a page with haste. A way needs to be found to stop Wikipedia from becoming a bastion of mediocrity. My previous question was part of a bigger issue which I am concerned about. The only way to describe it is, that a significant proportion of Islam articles, whether it is Sunni, Shia, Ahmady, Ismaili, Sufi, etc, etc, etc, are filled with underhanded non-RS compliant polemic whiff whaffery masquerading as articles that comply with WP:RS and all other related policies, when in fact a weighty chunk of the sources come from polemic sites, fan sites, discussion forums and other related unreliable sources & co. These pages need to be built using our guidelines and surely there must be an avenue to address this on a broad scale rather than tackling each page, one by one.

Now to the book mentioned above; this book is a Shia partisan book, produced by a publisher whose reliability cannot be verified. I understand that regardless of the partisanship, the book can be used when adding content regarding views and works, in the articles of Shia school, because the author seems to be a Shia Islam expert (but even his expertise is not established) but apart from that, can the book be used for anything else. Is there a relavent wikipedia policy on the use of sources in religion articles, especially in terms of how WP:RS is applied. Thank you for your help. Regards Mbcap (talk) 12:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 Stephen Hawking page, your edit caused a cite error (help). ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard for intervention regarding Strivingsoul. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to different sites like: www.washingtontimes.com , freebeacon.com , allenbwest.com , www.newsmax.com and www.unitedwithisrael.org John Kerry the foreign Minister of the USA has said that: he ‘wished U.S. had a leader like Iran’s supreme leader’. So I am sure that you have deleted that text without any logical reason. And also you are slandering.Rastegarfar.mo (talk) 10:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rastegarfar.mo: I don't care what you are "sure of". Stop adding fabrications and propaganda to Wikipedia.--Anders Feder (talk) 19:12, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Anders Feder: If you don't care what I say about your behavior and why I added that news and events by referring to different medias and websites, so be sure that I don't care about what you say. You are warring. Stop this bad behavior. I just said, that statement has been published on the medias in USA not just in Islamic countries.Rastegarfar.mo (talk) 06:05, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rastegarfar.mo: No, I am not. You are: [2]. The statement you added has not "been published on the medias in USA". The articles you've linked to are just making fun of the ridiculous Iranian state media and the fact that anyone would believe them.--Anders Feder (talk) 06:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 Islamic unity page, your edit caused an empty citation error (help). ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know any software which change the OCLC number to ISBN? With thanks.--Salman mahdi (talk) 12:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Salman mahdi: Look the OCLC number up at https://www.worldcat.org/ If an ISBN is registered, it should be listed under "Details".--Anders Feder (talk) 16:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Salman mahdi: Did the above work? (Not sure if you got the ping, since I had forgot to sign the message.)--Anders Feder (talk) 06:35, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I had looked at worldcat, but the book had not ISBN number, just it had OCLC number. Is the ISBN number needed when I want to make the article a FA?--Salman mahdi (talk) 11:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Salman mahdi: No, OCLC should be just as good as ISBN as far as I know.--Anders Feder (talk) 17:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Anders Feder/ImproveIslamArticles, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Anders Feder/ImproveIslamArticles and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Anders Feder/ImproveIslamArticles during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. نان (talk) 13:37, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you remove the line "When you point out that some change they made is wrong, they stick their fingers in their ears and do a ululation (watch)," from your otherwise kind of useful Improve Islam articles guide. It's racial stereotyping. Would you think it ok if an ImproveJudaismArticles had a sentence saying "When you point out that some change they made is wrong, they ignore it and shout "oy vey" over and over again?" What about an ImproveHinduismArticles essay that contains the sentence "When you point out that some change they made is wrong, they plug their ears and go snake charming?" In the MfD discussion you say that skewed editing is tastless, and this is true. But that doesnt mean your racially stereotyping joke about ululations isn't tastless too. Even if you don't find it tastless yourself, please keep in mind that others could. It doesnt add anything informative to your essay and could offend people. It's not like anything important will be lost from the meaning of your essay if you remove that sentence, so please can you do it? Bosstopher (talk) 10:08, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bosstopher: Not while it is nominated for deletion.--Anders Feder (talk) 11:00, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you'll remove it when the deletion nomination is over (it looks like it's almost definitely going to be kept)? If so, thank you.

@Bosstopher: If that is what the closing admin instructs me to do, I will of course comply. But I fundamentally disagree with your implication that it is bigoted.--Anders Feder (talk) 11:25, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask you to copy-edit this article and help me to make it a FA? With great thanks.--Salman mahdi (talk) 13:25, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Salman mahdi: I'll have a look later today.--Anders Feder (talk) 13:34, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Salman mahdi (talk) 13:48, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible for you to copy edit the article? --Salman mahdi (talk) 06:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider that accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence is deemed as personal attack. Serious accusations require serious evidence. I found you accusing me here without providing any evidences. Btw, I think you and Mbcap just seem to have close interest areas for editing and there's no reason to say that you are collaborators , as you accused me here. Mhhossein (talk) 13:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: There is nothing whatsoever wrong with having "close interest areas" with another legitimate editor. What should give you pause is your having mutual interests with a well-known POV-pusher who has been blocked 10+ times already. As for "evidence", I suggest you review your contribution history.--Anders Feder (talk) 16:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did I say anything is wrong? Well, the fact is that nothing gives me pause except Wikipedia rules and policies. I don't care who else is editing the pages I'm editing. However, your accusations are not in accordance with editing policies of Wikipedia as I said once. Mhhossein (talk) 00:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: Of course they are.--Anders Feder (talk) 00:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nope! Mhhossein (talk) 01:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: Yup! You don't have a clue about what the policies of Wikipedia are anyway.--Anders Feder (talk) 01:07, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if you think so, Please tell me what they are. I'll be nice to learn more about policies! Mhhossein (talk) 01:11, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You'd have to read them and decide for yourself. But certainly there is no policy that deem raising concerns about your affinity for referencing bogus sources a "personal attack".--Anders Feder (talk) 01:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mhhossein Why am I pinged in this conversation? Mbcap (talk) 07:26, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stating one's 'affinity for raising bogus sources' without providing evidences is another personal attack based on the policies. isn't it? Mhhossein (talk) 13:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't. It's a fair assessment of your contribution history.--Anders Feder (talk) 13:12, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You call it 'fair'! Mhhossein (talk) 00:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And that is what it is.--Anders Feder (talk) 01:19, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely maybe! Mhhossein (talk) 13:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great album.--Anders Feder (talk) 14:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mbcap nothing special. You may follow the thread if you like. Sorry if I shouldn't have pinged you. Mhhossein (talk) 13:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mhhossein I see. Thank you for explaining. Mbcap (talk) 23:44, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I saw you posted a comment on the Talk page for Abdul Rasul Zarrin regarding the notability of this 'sniper'. I've added it to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2015_July_25#Abdul_Rasul_Zarrin for comment by other editors. Londonclanger (talk) 21:24, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Anders, you seem to have a lot of experience dealing with sockfarms and weirdness in the Iranian politics topic area so I thought I'd ask you about this. Do you know what's going on with this article? Past few weeks a number of different new accounts have been editing the page. I'd suspect they're the banned sock who created the page, but they all seem to have a much better mastery of English grammar than him. Any clue where they could be coming from and what their purpose is? Brustopher (talk) 16:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Brustopher: I've been surprised about the activity in that article too, but other than many of the accounts being new, I honestly can't trace much of a pattern yet. They often edit in topic areas very different from the ones favored by the creator. They also don't add blatant bias, so no damage seems to be done, for now.--Anders Feder (talk) 17:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

why do you keep re-adding info for ashura? Khamenais ban is already mentioned and hezbolloh blood drive doesn't answer the specific criticisms. It sounds like promotional info instead. Also, hezbolloh pledges loyalty to khamenai anyway so there view is actually his view so really doesn't need adding or repeating.58.106.238.112 (talk) 15:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@58.106.238.112: The source is of high quality. At the least have the decency to move it to wherever the ban is mentioned rather than just deleting it.--Anders Feder (talk) 15:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a fair solution. I was not against the source anyway but the other info that was added that was either irrelevant or already mentioned above.58.106.238.112 (talk) 22:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Btw: when i have time i am going to have a closer look at the sources used by Hadi.anani. I am suspicious that he may be adding his own personal views then clothing them with references to legitimise his own views. I am suspicious he is using non-existent "supporting" references to this end (at least for a good chunk of his edits). I will first focus on the Momen, Moojan ref which he repeats quite a bit with a very repetitive and large page range for even some quite specific info. I will get to it soon when i have more free time.58.106.238.112 (talk) 22:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Anders Feder. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Bartolomé de Medina (mining specialist), for deletion because it's a biography of a living person that lacks references. If you don't want Bartolomé de Medina (mining specialist) to be deleted, please add a reference to the article.

If you don't understand this message, you can leave a note on my talk page.

Thanks, Arbustum (talk) 22:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just cleaned up User:Saff V.'s article on the Verse of Leadership (Quran 5:55) as part of its DYK review and saw some complaints about Shia propaganda in the edit history. Everything seems sourced and neutral to me but could you look it over and make sure that we're not saying anything FRINGEy? — LlywelynII 09:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@LlywelynII: The parts I was able to remove were only the most egregious ones. I am mildly skeptical of the views attributed to Sunnis (they seem convenient), but only a Sunni specialist could determine if they are correct. That said, Saff V. seem to be operating in good faith.--Anders Feder (talk) 19:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, he is. Just double-checking the sources. Thanks for your time. — LlywelynII 03:00, 12 October 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) 08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We notice that you don't read so. What was wrong with the contribute of the Aether Theories article? Didn't you read Wilczek's book and papers? If you're not informed about Science history let other people better aknowledged to modify the article in the proper way. Einstein stated that consider reality without a medium make Relativity impossible (go and verify by yourself if you don't believe us). This has to be written in the article. Thanks

User page: Vespro Latuna 17 December 2015 15:11 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vespro Latuna (talk • contribs)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Edda, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Icelandic. 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) 10:59, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Incumbent has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 01:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that, didn't mean to bother you. Didn't notice the other "incumbent" templates and wasn't entirely sure of use case before I nominated. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 01:42, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted this edit to the Philippine–American War article. From the information you gave in the edit summary, that does not appear to me to be an appropriate solution to such a problem. Excuse the terseness, please -- I'm in a rush. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:36, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 Ancient astronauts page, your edit caused a missing references list (help | help with group references). ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than simply reverting my reversion, the WP model is WP:BRD: Bold editing, reversion, discussion. You should take this issue to the talk page rather than simply insist on your version. -- Elphion (talk) 16:11, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Look, since you've been around for 11 years, you already know that BRD is good practice, whether policy or no. Simple reversion with "And?" is like waving a red flag. -- Elphion (talk) 16:37, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How could I know something that is not the case? Good practice is to seek to create consensus, whether it involves you being the one to start the discussion on the talk page or not – not just citing an essay as a I-get-one-revert-for-free card.--Anders Feder (talk) 17:10, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Digital Network Intelligence has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Per WP:NOTDICT. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:33, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:33, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I wrote "in 2017, it began on 21 April 2017." because the exercise itself does not began in 2017. the 2017 version began on April 2017, the exercise itself does not. Hope this explain that sentence in question. --Fauzty (talk) 16:28, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fauzty: Thanks for clarifying. Are there any sources for the claim that there are multiple "versions" of the exercise?--Anders Feder (talk) 17:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could there be a connection between that account and Strivingsoul? I couldn't help but notice the latter's contributions a few years back during the initial stages of the ongoing Yemen war, but only realized just now that this editor was banned. Looks like a duck to me. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 09:30, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fitzcarmalan: Certainly. Only a checkuser can access the hard evidence, but there is nothing in their behavior that doesn't fit the mold of Strivingsoul: The narrow focus on Irano-Shia propaganda-pushing. The endless dramawhoring. The self-righteous, pseudo-intellectual victim playing, attributing everything that goes against them to "Israel", "neocons" etc. They've also received multiple blocks on Persian Wikipedia.[3] The fact that admins continue to let these Islamist POV warriors run loose is testament to their unbounded incompetence.--Anders Feder (talk) 13:08, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fitzcarmalan: Also note their page here. It is written to seem innocuous: I'd agree American media have a corporate bias. But the user's actual activity does not reflect the idea that they are interested in correcting bias in general - they narrowly engage in disputes over content related to Iran and Shiism. This makes their so-called "media bias project" seem uncannily similar to Strivingsoul's notion of "correcting" so-called "systematic bias", which they invoked multiple times as justification for using unreliable, pro-Iran sources.[4][5][6][7][8][9]

Strivingsoul stated that they were "planning and preparing"[10] and "hoping"[11] to do something about this so-called "systematic bias" on Wikipedia, like that was a mission of theirs. The new user's so-called "media bias project", given the above considerations, reads exactly like an implementation or restatement of this mission, which fully suggests a line of continuity between the two user accounts. On the basis of this, I agree it smells like WP:DUCK.--Anders Feder (talk) 14:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I don't disagree with the philosophy of presenting all POVs equally (within reason, of course). But yes, this user seems to be pushing their POV way beyond the line. The pattern shown on Battle of Al Hudaydah fits the description you provided here, particularly this edit and their repeated insertion of the highly POV word "aggression" in the article. Would you be willing to file a report? I have not interacted with this user as much as you have. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:23, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fitzcarmalan: Thanks, but I don't want to interact with Wikipedia's incompetent admins at all. Good luck.--Anders Feder (talk) 21:07, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be at least okay with you if I copypasted some/most of the evidence described here? I don't feel like this particular duck case is worth my time and effort. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 08:32, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fitzcarmalan: Sure.--Anders Feder (talk) 10:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikimedia Foundation has invited the various Wikimedia communities, including the English Wikipedia, to participate in a consultation on improving communication methods within the Wikimedia projects. As such, a request for comment has been created at Wikipedia:Talk pages consultation 2019. You are invited to express your views in the discussion. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 05:15, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RMaung (WMF) 16:29, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RMaung (WMF) 15:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RMaung (WMF) 20:38, 3 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) 00:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Module:OfficeData has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the module's entry on the Templates for discussion page. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:35, 16 March 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) 01:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Content you added to the above article appears to have been copied from https://northseawindpowerhub.eu/23-march-2017-three-tsos-sign-agreement-on-north-sea-wind-power-hub/, which is not released under a compatible license. Copying text directly from a source is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, some content had to be removed and I paraphrased some. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. — Diannaa (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: A little overzealous, but I'll work with it. Thank you for patrolling anyway.--Anders Feder (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mr. Feder,

First of all, thank you for editing some parts of our article (Next Generation EU). We have worked on mistakes and improved our article. Thank you to renewing our article once again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SyhnSnmz10 (talk • contribs) 10:49, 10 May 2021 (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) 00:00, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]