User talk:Elfelix

Welcome!

Hello, Elfelix, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --

PaxEquilibrium 23:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for your letter. Please see the following references:

• 1. Sansad Bangali Charitabhidhan (Biographical dictionary) in Bengali edited by Subodh Chandra Sengupta and Anjali Bose
• 2. History of Brahmo Samaj by Pandit Sivanath Sastri

Thanks, Kumar Sanu 21:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did some work at Apostolic Succession, mainly removing older material duplicated and improved in subsequent sections. Then I read the talk page and realized what had happened. It still looks unfinished: you may want to continue the work there.

Thanks. Pobidoq 14:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you. I am fine.

Oh and the talk page is for posting messages. Cheers and happy editing. You're doing fine as I see so far! --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello First off, pardon my delay in responding; I was out of town. Secondly, I don't think there is a very clear method for splitting. It's mostly a matter of copying and pasting material, as best as I can tell. You may want to ask an administrator or someone on WP:IRC. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you did not notice when you said that I should "state [my] objections in discussion" that I had in fact already done so, and had asked multiple times questions in edit logs which you have thus far not addressed. Instead of insisting that it's "self-explanatory", would you please answer the questions I have addressed and address the concerns I have raised? Tb (talk) 23:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I really appreciate your work on the Chronological list of Spanish classical composers. Thanks a lot, and keep it up! Classicalfan2 (talk) 02:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have just moved information about economy and society of current Tunisia from History of modern Tunisia to the respective sections (Economy, Politics) of the article Tunisia. I do not think it is appropriate to have statistical and descriptive information about present-day Tunisia in the article on the history of Tunisia which should be more or less chronological. Olegwiki (talk) 19:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Malcolm H. Kerr requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject of the article is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} at the top of the article, immediately below the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate), and providing your reasons for contesting on the article's talk page, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. You may freely add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

You may want to read the guidelines for specific types of articles: biographies, websites, bands, or companies. Cheers! ► Wireless Keyboard ◄ 18:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Muhammad at Medina (book) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of notability, and no real content other than a list of chapters

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. William M. Connolley (talk) 21:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Early history of Tunisia and History of early Tunisia: these two discuss the same subjects. Should we merge their contents together into one article? ༆ (talk) 22:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your notice. The situation here is, I believe, that the earlier page EhoT was long ago incorporated by me into the several other pages on Tunisia, but primarilly into the HoeT page. Up to now I had understood that another editor had deleted the EhoT page last year. Of course, before deletion now of EhoT, any subsequent edit history should be checked for valuable additions made in the mean time. This work I volunteer to do, but it will require several weeks as I am currently preoccupied elsewhere. Elfelix (talk) 20:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Manuel Córdova-Rios, Elfelix!

Wikipedia editor FreeRangeFrog just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Wow, excellent work. Thank you!

To reply, leave a comment on FreeRangeFrog's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

merge text from Richard Helms article per TTAC - could you possibly explain somewhere - the abbreviation eludes the grey cells - having lived in indonesia during the new order my sense of absurdity regaring acronyms is still acute SatuSuro 07:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please excuse the esoterica. TTAC is a newly minted abreviation for the Wikipedia user: The TimesAreAChanging, which more acurately I see now should be TTAAC. TTAAC contributed the text for the section "Indonesia: Sukarno" in the 'Richard Helms' article, which TTAAC also has monitored. TTAAC has made recent contributions to 'CIA activities in Indonesia'. Otherwise, I am unfamiliar with this person, my fellow Wikipedia contributor. Elfelix (talk) 08:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(a)(the identification) How unfortunate,(b) (the inference from the user name) they are indeed (the Bob Dylan song/line/lyric returns as if yesterday), (c) (what to do) sigh, resigned sigh and wonder what next... cheers SatuSuro 08:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the song seemed very appropriate to events in the USA exactly four years ago. As to being unfortunate, for one, the human failure referenced is grave, saddening and maddening, one that is not acknowledged generally as are the more notorious events of a similar nature. Why this is so is not clear to me. Intense controversy surrounds such horrific events. To maintain a balance of context and a just equanimity to all concerned, the innocent and the guilty, in the face of such horror is a difficult challenge. May those who lost their lives there then, rest in peace.

The journalist source presented by TTAAC for discussing role of the USG does not seem to be of a stature appropriate to the gravity of the subject, but the source is appropriate and beneficial in presenting a variety of points of view from those in USG service in Indonesia at the time. Regarding this aspect of the human tragedy, I am not schooled in other relevant sources, e.g., academic, or Indonesian, or Chinese (yet PRC history reportedly also contains similar events). The record of contemporary USG misjudgments causing malfeasance in Vietnam, done in the midst of the Cold War in southeast Asia, is not fortunate either. Our species has not progressed as far as we sometimes want to think. Yet, cheers. Elfelix (talk) 16:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SatuSuro, thank you for your nuanced 'sighs': page modified. Elfelix (talk) 18:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've been looking at Talk:Hayreddin Pasha. If you were to propose, or just carry out, a move to Khair al-Din al-Tunsi or something like it I would support that. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:34, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your post! My first from a ghost. The next weeks will be too busy for me. Later I intend naming Khair al-Din. Hayreddin also but stated below.

I touch not Amalek, nor sorceror's maltech across eons, archons, weird ayes and stranger skies. Mercy of the Spirit shines in between the writ. So it seems to me from what I can see. What's around the corner may, or may not matter. Elfelix (talk) 03:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC) Copied from StG's talk. Elfelix (talk) 05:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Richard Helms, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aka (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 01:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The Biography Barnstar
		Your efforts have not gone unnoticed. Miguel Asín Palacios was one of the best biographies I've read on the encyclopedia, and 90% of it seems to be your own research into secondary and tertiary sources. You've performed a service for history and theology buffs everywhere. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Elfelix, and thank you for your contributions!

Some text in an article that you worked on Richard Helms, DCI and Ambassador, appears to be directly copied from another Wikipedia article, Richard Helms, early career. Please take a minute to double-check that you've properly attributed the source text in your edit summary.

It's entirely possible that this bot made a mistake, so please feel free to remove this notice and the tag it placed on Richard Helms, DCI and Ambassador at any time. MadmanBot (talk) 22:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why and how splits in bio articles like that are ok For a start the two separate articles if they are meant to be like that (I fail to see why)

• Need tags - ie project tags on their talk pages, and assessed - specially BIO arts
• Insufficient clarity of what you have done made me revert an article before I saw what you were doing

Please consider other editors and the reader as to what you are doing - it is not clear. sats 00:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you started an article about Sarah C. Paine. She looks like she's had a significant academic career so far and an article about her could be interesting.
Right now there's a significant problem with the section on the Wars for Asia 1911-1949 book. The article's supposed to be about her, sourced to third-party sources. Information about her books, including opinions of what the books are about, have to be sourced externally to her work as well. It can't be her scholarship about history, sourced to her.
Give or take, it looks like the first and last sentence are the only parts that would survive a challenge by other editors, and even then there need to be more third-party sourcing. I don't mind helping if I can, but let me know. If you're just starting the article and know all this, you might want to work on some of it in your sandbox before putting it in the article itself. __ E L A Q U E A T E 01:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, it looks like you've created another article with the same text. It's still not appropriate to source an article about a book solely to the book itself. You don't seem to have any third-party independent sources of any type. This kind of completely self-referential article is just likely to get deleted. It's not a comment on the book's quality, but Wikipedia requires verifiability (WP:V) for every claim you've added to that page. Do you see where the problem is? __ E L A Q U E A T E 05:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you very much for adding the excellent information about the book awards.

I have read your above postings. The book The Wars for Asia 1911-1949 published by Cambridge University Press is understood as a reliable source. Not only, but a noteworthy work of modern political and military history and, as such, acceptable as the subject of an article at Wikipedia. Here perhaps we agree.

After reading your first post, although I disagreed with it, nonetheless to be accommodating I started the book article, but entered an "edit conflict" before I read your second posting. In the meantime, of course, I had added several quotations from apparently university professors. I do not understand your portraying the book as somehow not a work of a third party author, here Prof. Paine. I hereby declare that I am not Prof. Paine, nor do I know of her other than through her books. Elfelix (talk) 07:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a great book, but articles need more than the book as a source. (Amazon is not considered an independent or reliable source,) People need to see that the information comes from a neutral and trustworthy source. Her book may be a good source for the history of Asia, but it is not a good source for opinion about itself. Look at some other books and how they talk more about the book and how people think of it (without using Amazon) and how they treat sources. We're supposed to be explaining why people think the book is important and less about re-telling the story that's in the book. It needs more balance and it needs better independent sources. Look at Wikipedia:SCHOLARSHIP too. Maybe I'll help later, but if the sources aren't strong and independent, and if it's only a retelling of the book's ideas, then it will be harder to keep the article when other people start seeing it, I think.__ E L A Q U E A T E 08:47, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I agree very much with you that the ideal article, when mature and complete, will contain reviews of the book by scholars familiar with the terrain, including criticism of its flaws and analysis with references to its merits in comparison to adjacent literature (although it apparently breaks some new ground). Undoubtedly the book will draw some caustic comments (it appears to reflect in part Taiwanese opinion). Yet the article here is in its infancy, about a book of 2012. Understandably the article's not yet ready for a scholar's eyes. Thank you for your comments, which are well thought out. In my imperfect but earnest opinion, it is timely to begin now with an article about this book. Elfelix (talk) 09:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Some notes on style: in English apart form the stereotypical phrase "begin at page N", we say "on page N". So what's with the "Smith (YYYY) at page N"? Normally, short citations have the form "Smith (YYYY), p. N". Note that "Cf." is never followed by a comma.[1] I suppose you have employed this idiosyncratic style in numerous articles. All those article need to be fixed eventually. Please see also WP:DASH. --Omnipaedista (talk) 16:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also you have to choose between the section title "references" and the section title "notes". The title "Reference notes" makes little sense[2] (see WP:APPENDIX). --Omnipaedista (talk) 16:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your words of instruction. In the past few years I have been discontinuing my use of an acquired style learned from professional life, and have hopefully shifted, to employ the conventions of wikipedia. My new usage habits, however, are not always 100%, yet. Question: Until several years ago, there was an icon of a heart, which was colored red, on the top line to the right of my user name. Then it disappeared. I noticed that other user pages still have these icons. Why was it removed on my page? I've made inquiries at wikipedia about it, several times, but have received no reply. If I would desire it's return, is there a way to do it? How would that work? Thanks for your consideration in responding. Elfelix (talk) 18:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion regarding merging History of Punic-era Tunisia: chronology and History of Punic-era Tunisia: culture into History of Carthage being held at Talk:History of Carthage#Merge. You are being approached as you are a recent or significant editor of one or other of the articles, or because you have expressed interest in the merge previously. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:05, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your recent comments Elfelix. I understand that you wish to have two articles on the same topic, each with a different viewpoint, but that is not how Wikipedia arranges things. While doing some work on Carthage and Tunisia articles as part of the preparation for merging, I noted your contributions. You are a significant contributor in this area, and you have knowledge of the history. Your enthusiasm and work ethic has to be commended. I will give you a barn star for what you have done so far - much of your work will be kept, and will be used as the basis for future developments of the ancient Tunisia and Carthage articles. The issue we have is not with your involvement in Wikipedia - that is very good, and we wish you to continue, but with how some of what you have done does not meet our guidelines. For every user/editor/contributor to Wikipedia there is a process of learning how to do things. Learning how to use wiki mark-up, learning how to layout an article, learning about our notability and inclusion criteria, learning about consensus, etc. All of us are learning all the time. And sometimes we need to discuss with each other to decide the best way forward. In this situation it was clear that there was a problem, and this had been raised in the past. With such clear cases we sometimes simply merge articles together without the need to discuss, but as I noted that you had resisted previous attempts to merge, I felt it best to get clear consensus before moving forward. What has slowed down this whole process is that there are not many contributors working in this area, so there hasn't been a great deal of attention paid. It is part of Wikipedia that some topics get more attention than others, and recent events, and popular figures get a lot of attention, while noble subjects like the history of Carthage get sadly neglected. You are the main contributor to this subject, so I do hope you will continue to work in this area, learning more about Wikipedia guidelines as you go along. I am willing to help out. I have a selection of books from my local library on Carthage and the Punic Wars, and intend to help work on those articles, though my personal circumstances are inhibiting my involvement at the moment. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For a hard working editor and in recognition of his work and enthusiasm on Carthage and Tunisia articles on Wikipedia. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:55, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Barnstar of Diligence

Thank you so much for all the work you have done on wikipedia. It is very diligent, well-sourced, and high-quality. I hope you allow yourself to have some pride about adding to the documentation of human knowledge. The page that specifically brought your contributions to my attention is the page of Trần Ngọc Châu. I am one of his grandsons, and I just wanted to let you know that the Trần family and specifically, Châu himself, have seen the page and we are very impressed. He even tries to give people copies of the entire article that he has had printed and bound from a nearby print shop (even though more than half of it is footnotes, he left the footnote pages in the binding!) Again, thank you so very much for really being the creator of his page, and for all the work you've done on it and any of your other wikipedia work. --Timothy U. Valjeans (talk) 08:03, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Original Barnstar

I highly appreciate what you did for Ralph McGehee's biography. My essay on Ralph was about the most prominent one on him for many years ( http://ahealedplanet.net/mcgehee.htm ), and I am very happy to see that his biography is as good as it is, thanks to you. Critics like Ralph often get hack bios at Wikipedia and, at least today, his bio is a fair one. Thanks again, Wade Frazier Wadefrazier (talk) 17:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to thank you for contribution. You've made a great job with the article about Polish National Ballet, which is for me very important as I am emotionally and professionally associated with it. I really appreciate your wide knowledge, and I hope to continue filling gaps in it's history with you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bebronka (talk • contribs) 14:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Elfelix!

I noticed your edits when I was reading about the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act and noticed that you have done lots of edits and transformed the page from a rather small one into a truly great and informative article. I haven't read the whole article yet, (will tomorrow) but some of the sections I read used references I am familiar with.

I created a page (currently in Draft space) Draft:California_housing_shortage which talks about some of the same housing affordablilty issues you included in the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act article.

Since you clearly have good subject matter knowledge in this area, I was wondering, if you have time and inclination, whether you might have a look at that page and either edit it yourself, or offer suggestions to me about anything you feel that I may have left out/could be improved, as well as general ways to improve the article.

I am somewhat new to Wikipedia, and am still learning, so any advice or suggestions you could offer would be much appreciated.

Thanks!! Avatar317 (talk) 06:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)Avatar317[reply]

Hi, Avatar. I left a 2500 byte reply on your talk page. Elfelix (talk) 03:14, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Help upload [3] photos to wikipedia and add to the post Maureen Wroblewitz. Thank a lot.116.102.53.78 (talk) 02:39, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what this is about. I decline. Elfelix (talk) 03:12, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just copyediting someone's unsourced work, I have no sources for it. You'd have to ask whoever wrote it. I'm just trying to correct, make it more comprehensible, remove verbosity, irrelevant stuff or obvious bias. I added a paragraph on top and I will source it before I'm done. If I add some new info, I will source it as I always do. Orczar (talk) 04:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sudarshan Kapoor 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/Sudarshan Kapoor 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.

nearlyevil665 06:22, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Miranda Garrison, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miranda Garrison until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:03, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Elfelix (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

In my "due delegence" investigation of my last edits (re articles and talk pages per January 2023), I did not find any notice that I personally did anything wrong, nor any notice as to why I personally deserved to get blocked, and also I did not in fact discover that I personally did anything wrong, nor have I ever intended to do anything wrong. Therefore, I conclude I should be unblocked. I do acknowledge having limited knowledge of Wikipedia, its administration and technicalities. I have used the same internet address (at anet.net, which I understand has always been personal-to-me) since my first edit at Wikipedia in 2007. Accordingly, I think it's not a "web host" or "colocation provider". Insert your reason to be unblocked here Elfelix (talk) 23:14, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

In order to look into this, we need to know the IP address involved. It should appear in the message you get when you attempt to edit, or you can use a tool like whatismyip dot com to determine it. If you don't want to post it publicly, you may use WP:UTRS to make a private unblock request. 331dot (talk) 23:51, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Hello, Elfelix. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Sudarshan Kapur, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 00:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Bhairava7 was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Sudarshan Kapur instead.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Sudarshan Kapur and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

--- Bhairava7 • (@píng mє-tαlk mє) 10:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Elfelix! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! --- Bhairava7 • (@píng mє-tαlk mє) 10:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Zichan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lüshi.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:53, 5 October 2024 (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) 00:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]