Hi! I am writing just so you know that Guernsey is incorporated in the UK in the form again. Do you mind separating them in the form and explaining in the talk page? Given that you are from the Channel Islands, you should know better than any of us. Thanks! Chbe113 (talk) 09:25, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gah! Thanks for letting me know, I'll give it a go now. —Formulaonewiki 09:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Sadly, it seems like the Channel Islands have been incorporated in the UK again. I checked and I think it is 'RandomIntrigue' who did the change, who was also the one arguing with us in the talk page previously. To be honest, I am afraid that I no longer have the energy to argue with other people on the status of crown dependencies, but I will still support you if such discussions arise. Chbe113 (talk) 11:21, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chbe113: Thanks for pointing it out. To be quite honest, I'm feeling the same. About to enter self-isolation as I'm travelling home so perhaps once the boredom sinks in I'll end up getting involved again; I'll let you know if I do. Appreciate it. —Formulaonewiki 12:53, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chbe113: Hey, just to let you know there is a RfC going out about separating territories here and your contribution is welcome! —Formulaonewiki 10:47, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I have expressed my stance. Chbe113 (talk) 11:27, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks. Don't know how much of the talk page discussions you've followed but a certain user is being a bit of a headache with uncivil/incoherent responses and is now going off on a tangent on the RfC... hopefully it'll resolve itself soon! —Formulaonewiki 11:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for maintaining the Guernsey covid data tables and articles, really useful stuff there. I added todays but wanted to make sure I got the samples taken calculations correct as gov.gg don't list that. I presume it's samples tested + awaiting results? Feel free to correct/let me know. DamienG (talk) 13:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Thanks for your message and thanks for adding today's stats. It's just the samples tested stat I believe, not with the awaiting results added. —Ave (talk) 18:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I also wanted to say thank you for keeping the Guernsey covid data updated too! I was also wondering if you had a source for the data over time as well or if you were manually updating the wiki page when the States updated their site daily? I was hoping to have a look at the data and contacted the States to see if they had any datasets available but they said they weren't releasing them to the public. 88.81.141.220 (talk) 16:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'm glad it's appreciated! I just update it daily, which unfortunately isn't ideal with regards reliable sourcing. The alternative would to reference the daily local newspapers reporting the daily stats, but that seems ridiculously excessive (some 340+ additional references). It's a real shame the States won't release a full set of data. To be honest, I can't see any reason why not – it should be possible to anonymise it sufficiently if that's what they're concerned about. Maybe in time they will change their mind, who knows? —Ave (talk) 12:48, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Yeah it is frustrating there is no complete set of the data available anywhere. Especially as some of the numbers on the page don't add up correctly (i.e. 1 new positive case on 17th of Jan isn't reflected in the total) and these numbers don't quite match the slides from the Guernsey press (47 reported on 31st Jan not 46). I'm not sure if there has been some retrospective changes to the numbers from the States or something. Once again, thanks a lot for your work, you've done a great job keeping it updated. 88.81.141.220 (talk) 18:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've been very busy since around September (life etc.) so another user has updated the majority of stats since then, unfortunately with a lesser degree of accuracy. I'll try to find time to go through an iron out some of those errors and inconsistencies at some point. No worries, thank you for your kind words. All the best —Ave (talk) 22:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		COVID-19 Barnstar
		For great efforts on creating and expanding 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Guernsey. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:53, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's a first! Thank you. —Formulaonewiki 12:32, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by BOTs and CDs in this edit? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 16:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Valoem: British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies. Their figures are nearly universally recorded, published and reported on separately from those of the UK (and importantly not counted in the UK Gov's totals), so to me it made no sense to include a recoveries figure which does include them. —Formulaonewiki 17:01, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So BOTs and CDs are apart of the UK territory by definition. They should be included or the 135 figure needs to be entirely removed, its is an outdated number from March 22. Obviously many more people have recovered than just 215, but JHU is considered a reliable sighted source so it is the only one we have. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 20:41, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the only responsibility the UK has to both groups of islands is defence and (to an extent) international relations (in forums where they are not themselves represented such as the UN). They are otherwise completely independent. I'd agree with you to be honest, I think the recoveries should be removed entirely until they release updated figures. —Formulaonewiki 21:06, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Formulaonewiki, why did you remove "actor and now professional boxer" from KSI ? The source very clearly mentions KSI as a "a British YouTuber, musician, actor and now professional boxer" in their article. And the source is The Independent which is one of the most reliable sources per WP:RSPSOURCES and the consensus on it. If you have a source more reliable than The Independent which only mentions KSI as a rapper and YouTuber, then sure add it but there isn't any. Because the two most reliable sources that have written an in-depth article on him i.e The Independent and The Times have both mentioned him as an "actor and now professional boxer".

His channel being top 130 most subscribed channels on the platform was removed because it hasn't been covered in a single reliable source, social blade is only a primary source. If it hasn't been covered in a single reliable source, that means it is not notable enough to be included in the article. Otherwise every YouTuber wikipedia article would have their channel ranking in their article but its not the case, barely any YouTuber page does except Pewdiepie and that's because his ranking has been covered in reliable sources. -Sxkc (talk) 13:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sxkc: Just because one reliable source states something does not mean we should discount a body of reliable sources across an article which can be collated. It is a lead paragraph and should accurately summarise, not just list everything he does.

You appear to have misunderstood both the definition and use of primary sources. Socialblade is acceptable to reference subscriber counts and rankings in this case. Pointing to what is or isn't used in other articles (particularly ones about YouTubers which sadly often have a number of issues) doesn't provide any basis for not including ranking with socialblade as a source. —Formulaonewiki 14:37, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Formulaonewiki: Its not one though. Every reliable source that has written an in-depth article on KSI within the past year have mentioned him as an actor and a boxer. The Independent and The Times are the two most reliable of them, both of which are regarded as highly reliable sources in general per WP:RSPSOURCES and their conensus, have both mentioned him as a boxer and actor.

I know Socialblade is acceptable to reference subscriber counts but I'm talking about the rankings portion, him being top 130 most subscribed channels on the platform hasn't been covered in a single reliable source whatsoever. Whereas him being the third most subscribed music channel in the UK has indeed been covered in reliable sources, that's why it was added in place of that because the info is just more reliable and notable than him being top 130 most subscribed channels which is only covered in a primary source and not a single reliable source. Plus, barely any YouTuber wikipedia article have their channel ranking in their article except Pewdiepie and that's because his ranking is notable and has been covered in reliable sources. -Sxkc (talk) 14:47, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your syntax is very difficult to follow. What does "Its not one though" refer to? WP:RSPSOURCES is not an exhaustive list, we can perfectly well use more appropriate sources. Just because an article which is on that list focuses on his ranking against purely music channels is not sufficient basis to include only that ranking, particularly when music comprises only a small portion of his uploads. Socialblade also trumps the others in terms of recency, being constantly updated. I have already said that "barely any YouTuber wikipedia article have their channel ranking in their article (sic)" does not hold up as an argument against its inclusion here. —Formulaonewiki 16:34, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Formulaonewiki: I'm saying its NOT only one reliable source that mentions KSI as an actor and a boxer. Every reliable source that has written an in-depth article on KSI within the past year have mentioned him as an actor and a boxer. The Independent and The Times stating him as "YouTuber, rapper, actor and boxer" should be more than enough to justify the fact that "actor and boxer" should be included. You're just removing sourced information because you don't like it.

As for the primary source info, him being top 130 most subscribed channels on the platform hasn't been covered in a single reliable source whatsoever. The point of "barely any YouTuber wikipedia article have their channel ranking in their article" was that there's a good reason for that, there's no need for it unless it has been covered in a reliable source or the ranking itself is worth mentioning (as in no. 1 or top 10) not no. 127 rank and not covered in any reliable source whatsoever. Its literally just a way of trying to increase the word count of the article using primary sources. Him being the third most subscribed music channel in the UK has indeed been covered in reliable sources and is important information (along with him being among top 30 most subscribed artists that has a whole wiki page on it) because Youtube converted KSI's main channel to "official artist channel" recently (you can see the artist badge beside his name on his main youtube channel) so yes, it is officially an artist channel now and his music rank is important and deserves to be mentioned. You're again removing sourced information because you personally just don't like it.-Sxkc (talk) 17:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Formulaonewiki, I got a question to ask you. I seen you edit KSI’s page a lot and I need to ask you a question. There’s this editor that keeps editing his discography page and he keeps adding redlinks to his songs/albums that hasn’t been made or that does meet notable guidelines even tho me and another editor keeps telling him to stop. Should he be reported or be giving some sort of warning? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FettyHyper (talk • contribs)

Hey. I'm not sure I'm the best qualified person to answer this question, but I'll do my best. Thanks for noticing the disruptive editing, reverting it and flagging it. I noticed you left a polite talk page message, which is definitely the correct first step. Talk page message templates are often useful, but with editors like this (who in my experience are usually adolescent and/or inexperienced editors), perhaps a personalised message politely explaining the rules, why their edits aren't helpful, and where they can learn more might be more productive. Should they ignore the messages and persist with the same disruptive edits, then perhaps use a template warning message to explain the consequences (blocks, bans etc.) of their conduct. If neither of those prove successful, my next step would be to seek advice from an administrator, or from someone more experienced (as I assume you have done here). I hope that helps. —Formulaonewiki 15:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that sometimes it can be better to just walk away, and maybe have another go fixing it another day. Most of my edits on KSI (entertainer) and Sidemen were cleaning up a mess of unsourced fancruft junk written by the above type of editor, I had a go explaining the rules to a few and ultimately it proved a waste of time sadly. That being said, a few got themselves blocked anyway by an administrator for their disruptive edits and for using multiple accounts abusively. I notice you've also reverted edits by a user named Timwikisidemen, whom I've previously tried to reason with (have a read here) to little avail. Let me know if I can help or if you need any input in any discussions and I'll be happy to help if I have time. —Formulaonewiki 15:37, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for answering the question. It seems like he stopped adding redlinks with this edit but still kinda having an edit war with the other user. I will consider those options if this continue to happen. FettyHyper (talk) 21:26, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thanks for your edits on the Tom Scott (entertainer) article. Rotation4020 (talk) 18:26, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Malvern College, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rugby (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Chronic edit warring, blatant COI by a school. The discussion is about the topic Victoria College, Jersey. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 17:00, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:33, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRD applies here. You should seek consensus for your change rather than continually revert. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:59, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't 'continually revert' anything. I made a change (amongst other edits) per BOLD which you reverted due to lack of an explanation, which I then reinstated (once) providing an appropriate explanation in the edit summary. Happy to start a discussion about the change if you feel it is appropriate, but don't go making untrue accusations about my editing behaviour. —Formulaonewiki 15:18, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ave, I have noticed that you have reverted the edit made by 81.108.136.100, on the page Welbeck Defence Sixth Form College. From me looking at the edit, it seems to me as if he has referenced a book, namely Independent Schools: The Facts. If this does validate his claim, that the DSFC is not a full member of the Headmasters' and Headmistresses' Conference, then, I politely ask: why did you revert the edit? Kind regards, SmartyPants22 (talk) 22:34, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SmartyPants22, I'm fairly certain that the citation given has been lifted straight from the Public school (United Kingdom) article, which states that "The independent schools’ representative body, the Independent Schools Information Service (ISIS),^[1][2] defined public schools as long-established, student-selective, fee-charging independent secondary schools that cater primarily for children aged between 11 or 13 and 18, and whose head teacher is a member of the Headmasters' and Headmistresses' Conference (HMC).^[3]" without being examined further. It is bad practice to simply copy citations unless the exact phrase and entire supporting context is lifted also.

I don't believe the edit adds anything more than to add unnecessary emphasis to the fact that the College is not a member of the HMC, when it is clearly described as an "associate". The school has long been considered a public school in the traditional British sense of the term, as evidenced by its historical records at the OWA website and by secondary third-party sources such as this 1966 article about British Public Schoolboys. The MoD funding and subsidies make it a maintained school, but its membership gives an indication of status alongside other independent schools as explained in this page of the 2012-13 Independent Schools Yearbook.

I was probably being a bit lazy and inconsiderate to that editor in simply reverting their changes instead of discussing why I think the edit was unnecessary and suggesting my proposed wording, so that's my fault. I might suggest an alternative tonight if I have time. Thanks. —Ave (talk) 18:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ave That's completely fine, and to me it seems as if you are in the right- I was just a bit perplexed at the situation; but that was probably half my fault for not properly looking into the reference. Thanks for the explanation! SmartyPants22 (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You could say "In 1919 Hamilton and Bottas finished first and second respectively". You can't apply it to a simple list of Hamilton's wins. Ian Dalziel (talk) 21:57, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you can. Indeed, 'respectively' can be used to clarify that two or more things listed should be interpreted in the order already mentioned, but it is also used to distinguish a list of things from one another as separate or individual things. —Ave (talk) 21:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you quote a dictionary which supports that use? Neither dictionary.com nor the OED online seems to.

I suggest a read of WP:CIVIL wouldn't go amiss, too... Ian Dalziel (talk) 22:00, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what I did to cause any upset; I gave the definition and invited you to check it yourself as you were reluctant to accept my explanation alone. Literally the second result on google links to a dictionary definition. —Ave (talk) 19:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A dictionary definition which does not accord with your assertion. Both examples apply to lists - "Mary and Anne" and "the solutions". There is only one Lewis Hamilton... Ian Dalziel (talk) 19:30, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect. It does accord with "2: in particular : SEPARATELY // could not recognize the solutions as salty or sour, respectively", whereby the separately listed Grands Prix are the 'sweet' or 'salty' e.g. 'Tusan', 'British' or 'Belgian' etc. Never did I assert that there was more than one Lewis Hamilton, though I'm glad you agree on that. —Ave (talk) 19:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Solutions" is plural. It has to be, for the "separately" meaning to work. Ian Dalziel (talk) 22:56, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it is, as is 'Grands Prix'. —Ave (talk) 17:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Charles Trotter you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 17:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Charles Trotter you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Charles Trotter for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 19:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Charles Trotter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 50 meter rifle. 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) 06:22, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 16 November 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Lewis Hamilton, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:40, 16 November 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) 02:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get to decide whether or not it was a personal attack, especially if you're going to ignore a request to WP:ENGAGE on the article talk page.GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 08:04, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GhostOfDanGurney:

1. Nothing I've done or said constitutes a violation of WP:NPA. You've chosen to take the fact that I removed the content you added personally, despite my comments being solely about the content itself. I'd invite you to read the NPA guidance page once more.
2. Your first edit, which included a report-style "On 30 December, 2020, it was announced that ...", which you referenced with only a bare url, was reverted because there was already a similar statement given in the body with a complete reference. Thankfully, you have since inserted a much more elegant reference to the knighthood in the lead with "and was honored with knighthood at the end of [2020]" without the said reference (in accordance with recommendations at WP:LEADCITE). This is fine.

The guidelines you have referred to are written with the express intention of encouraging and facilitating collaboration between editors to achieve better outcomes. They are not tools for you to unfairly (or simply incorrectly) throw at other editors when you disagree with them.

To this end, comments such as "You don't get to decide whether or not it was a personal attack" are not helpful nor constructive. A quick read of the NPA guidance makes it objectively clear that nothing I said or did in relation to your edit constitutes a personal attack.

Also unhelpful are accusations that I've "ignored [your] request" to start a talk page discussion. (a) that request was made barely 10 hours ago (9 of which I've been asleep for); (b) in any event, it's been resolved without the need for such a discussion; and (c) you cannot compel/should not demand people to respond to you.

—Ave (talk) 11:04, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You could have done that in the first place instead of "nope, I don't like this" and reverted, but I guess I'm the lazy one here... GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 14:29, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's unclear what you're trying to achieve here. I never said "nope, I don't like this", nor did I call you lazy, so it's also unclear why you're now making things up. In any case, the issue is resolved. I hope you have taken the time to read and understand WP:NPA and WP:ENGAGE. —Ave (talk) 14:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lewis Hamilton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Greatest of All Time.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some of your images or media files have been listed for discussion. Please see Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 February 21 if you are interested in preserving their usage.

• File:States of Guernsey coronavirus public info poster.pdf
• File:States of Guernsey Coronavirus Stay at Home.pdf
• File:States of Guernsey Catch it Bin it Kill it poster.pdf

Thank you. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 18:26, 21 February 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) 00:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Lewis Hamilton. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. SSSB (talk) 15:19, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I made one reversion, and subsequent edits from both myself and ROC7 have been constructive. This notice is wholly unnecessary. —Ave (talk) 19:07, 14 February 2022 (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) 01:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Formula One career of Lewis Hamilton 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/Formula One career of Lewis Hamilton 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 until the discussion has finished.

Tvx1 17:15, 12 February 2023 (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) 00:49, 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) 00:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]