User talk:Epistulae ad Familiares

Welcome!

Hello, Epistulae ad Familiares, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @ 18:53, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 14

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Late April writing

Fr: CalEditerILikeTrain

Dear epistulae,

Pls do not revert edits and pls make wiki an interesting place. Edits that are reverted should have citations from being reverted. All you do is revert and revert. Pls do not spam my talk page as it is uncomfortable for you to do so. My apologies for being a little coarse but will you join me in the quest to make Wikipedia an enriching place for young minds? Thanks for reading; I would like to say on North South MRT Line saying of reserved and not planned is correct. I would appreciate your reply.

CalEditerILikeTrain (talk) 09:09, 24 April 2019 (UTC)CalEditerILikeTrain[reply]

@CalEditerILikeTrain: Thank you for reaching out to me and finally replying after all the messages I have left for you on your talk page (but you appear to have since deleted, along with the warning messages from other editors). As I have mentioned previously, the reason why I reverted some of your edits have been explained in my edit summaries. This is a short statement and summary of the changes made that is found the History tab of any article. Where the article North South MRT line is concerned, I reverted your edits because they added a wikilink to an article that did not exist and was not likely to exist in the near future, and it also added a statement that was completely unsourced. This has also been explained in my edit summary. Per WP:V, content that you wish to add on Wikipedia must be verifiable, such as adding a reference. I am not concerned about whether you are right or wrong, but whether your content it is verifiable, per Wikipedia's policies. If it is not backed up by references, then it can be removed by other editors. There is no such thing as "citations from being reverted [sic]". If anything, citations should be given when adding content; content can be removed if they do not have citations.

Your talk page is a place designed for other editors to notify you of any edits or behaviours that may not be in accordance with Wikipedia's policies, in addition to being a place of discussion. Asking other editors not use it to notify you of any possible bad edits does not mean that those editors will stop scrutinising your edits or reverting bad edits, and only increase the risk of you misunderstanding their intentions because they cannot explain their reversions nor suggest ways for you to improve your editing skills. It is also particularly inconsistent to demand that I not message you on your user talk page because it makes you "uncomfortable", but feel it is entirely appropriate to post on my user talk page, in addition to making personal attacks on both your user page and my user page.

On that note, if you are truly sincere about your apology about "being a little coarse", then I would also request that you remove the content on your user page that says "I hate Epistulae ad familiars for he does nothin’ but reverts edits. He leaves messages on my talk page every now & then. I think he is a bot hired by SMRT" and "Hard with epistulae ad familiars interfereing with my wiki life...". Such language, in particular attributing bad faith intentions to other editors and publicly denouncing them as being a WP:BOT is considered WP:UNCIVIL conduct and could be considered grounds for community sanctions.

Nonetheless, I am heartened to see your "quest to make Wikipedia an enriching place for young minds", and I would strongly encourage that you start by reading about Wikipedia's core content policies in order to know how to contribute constructively and avoid unnecessary clashes with other editors in the future. Epistulae ad Familiares (talk) 17:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shippea Hill

You are incorrect, and your allegation of vandalism is entirely without basis. The event took place on the afternoon of 15 June. 131.111.184.91 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:08, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, you have failed to give any basis for why this deserves inclusion on Wikipedia. Please cite a WP:RELIABLE source and furthermore justify why inserting the text In June 2019, a group of 71 students from the University of Cambridge travelled from Shippea Hill to Cambridge. into the article Shippea Hill railway station is considered encyclopaediac content.

Otherwise, WP:NONSENSE mentions of "I was here" and "So-and-so was here" on articles relating to public transport, even those of poorly-attended stations, will be treated as vandalism, as it always has. Thank you. Epistulae ad Familiares (talk) 01:59, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Getting the box to work

For the box to work you'd need to leave in the "hastemplate:"Catholic religious institutes"_" part, such as a search for "German" would be hastemplate:"Catholic religious institutes"_German.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 00:30, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Epiphyllumlover: Thanks very much for clarifying! That makes sense, though I wonder if that might not seem obvious for the average user. Either way, I'm fine if it's put back, I only removed it because I wondered if it was simply coded wrongly. Epistulae ad Familiares (talk) 04:40, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave it out for now, but of course see if there are any other opinions.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to weigh in here as to whether templates should have a search box or not: User_talk:Epiphyllumlover#Search_boxes_on_templates.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Congregation of the Missionaries of Mariannhill logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Congregation of the Missionaries of Mariannhill 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) 17:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting Edits, Advertising

I am not sure why you viewed the edit I made to the Utah Legal Tender Act as advertising and removed it. The link for the Goldback that I added to the See Also section directly references the Utah Legal Tender Act on the home page and was inspired by the passage of that legislation. I see this as relevant information that is related to the passage of the law, just as the UPMA (listed under see also) was also inspired by the passage of that legislation. Rather than add a brief link under "see also", should I have added to the main text to indicate that the passage of the Utah Legal Tender Act had inspired the creation of a new local currency? I am genuinely curious as I am new to Wikipedia. Biomechagold (talk) 16:24, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

September 2019

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Your edits on the article JPMorgan Chase may be considered to be edit warring. If this continues, may have to talk to other administrators and have you blocked. Saved by God's grace (talk) 00:27, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try. It is not anywhere remotely close to edit warring to copyedit articles to remove WP:UNSOURCED data and add sources to others. It is also WP:UNCIVIL and rather hypocritical to threaten other users with blocking when you are yourself engaged in disruptive editing and edit warring, including the unwarranted labelling as 'vandalism' any edits that does not conform to your preferred version of the article. It may also be noted it is inappropriate to speak of 'other administrators' by implying that you are an administrator as well, which you are not. If you wish, we can escalate this to WP:ANI. Epistulae ad Familiares (talk) 06:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Complaint

Why did you delete my reversion? Did you see the patent which says Elbert was the developer of Gel? The Davis composition which comprises the Fleshlight? The source is already in the article... You don’t even care about the evidence and reverted my edit before you could have even investigated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:8:5::34 (talk) 13:42, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

you deleted my request for clarification, deeming it dosruptive to other comments? you deleted my edit without cause, then when asked why you think Elbert isnt sourced in the patent already sourced. The talk page on Fleshlight has you noted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:8:5:0:0:0:34 (talk) 13:50, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no part nor any interest in your personal disputes over the content, which I understand to be a longstanding issue on the article. As a recent changes patroller, I revert changes which do not justify the deletion of sources, which was the case here, and was hence sufficient cause to revert the edit. I would like to suggest that you establish an appropriate consensus through WP:CIVIL discussion on the article's talk page here, rather than pursuing individual editors on their personal talk pages or edit warring on the article. Perhaps, then, you would not be facing so many reversions to your attempts to force through changes without discussion. Epistulae ad Familiares (talk) 14:54, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar!!

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		This is for your valuable efforts for countering Vandalism and protecting Wikipedia from it's threats. I appreciate your effort. You are a defender of Wikipedia. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 14:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Message from User:Millennials sucks

we are from Reddit post, join our Reddit gang to disrupt Millenials. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Millennials sucks (talk • contribs) 05:37, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is WP:NOT a WP:SOAPBOX for personal campaigns. Please bear in mind that WP:DISRUPTIVE editing as you advocate and have been doing ([1] and [2]) is forbidden under Wikipedia's policies and will be reverted. Epistulae ad Familiares (talk) 05:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

About Loukas Yorkas

Hello! Loukas Yorkas is my brother and any changes i made is with him and because some links or categories are wrong. Thank you. Theodorosyiorkas (talk) 06:21, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for replying and giving an answer for your unexplained deletion of content. However, some links and categories being wrong does not appear to be a good reason why you deleted all of the links and categories as you did at Loukas Yorkas. In addition, you did so without giving explaining your actions in an edit summary, so that is why your edits were flagged as possible vandalism and reverted.

In addition, I must take this opportunity to advise you that it is prohibited to edit Wikipedia articles where you possess a conflict of interest. In other words, you may not edit Loukas Yorkas if the subject of the article is your brother. Instead, we advise you to instead follow certain best practices on how to go about such topics. You may instead wish to use {{Request edit}} on the talk page of the article at Talk:Loukas Yorkas to request other editors to edit things you perceive to be erroneous. Epistulae ad Familiares (talk) 06:32, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	It's always nice to see another editor join the anti-vandalism brigade. Keep it up! Jeb³ _{Talk at me here} 13:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I am very honoured! Epistulae ad Familiares (talk) 13:22, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for showing me the wiki adventure

Hello, Epistulae ad Familiares I'd like to thank you for showing me where to go to learn how to edit and what my edits should look like. Another thing I would like is to ask you if there is any articles you or another wikipedia editor need help with. Justdatguy132 (talk) 18:57, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you

Here is a kitten for you. I hope that you are not allergic!!!!!!!! LOL!!!!!!!! 2605:A000:121E:C85A:F904:DD9:CCD1:2FE (talk) 06:23, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

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) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

COI and POV must be proven

Please stop replacing the POV/COI tags for which the originator has expressed regret. POV and COI must be proven, and I have survived that test as check of my Archives makes clear. Jzsj (talk) 16:56, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that my edit may have caused some discomfort. As you have suggested, I have had a look and it appears that your archives largely focuses on whether you have a WP:PAID relationship regarding individual Jesuit-run schools (the conclusion being no), but that is a separate topic from WP:COI. The few comments that do exclusively discuss COI separately from paid editing (particularly at Archive 6) agree that you do simultaneously have a COI and act in good faith, and therefore there are no grounds to label you as a paid editor or ban you from articles on that basis (other than the topic ban on schools which was done for other reasons). In the same way, I would like assure you that the COI tag on the Society of Jesus article simply declares your COI in the spirit of transparency as already reflected in your archives and also openly stated on your userpage - it does not prohibit you from making good faith edits to the article, which I trust you will continue to do so. Epistulae ad Familiares (talk) 17:38, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the purpose of those tags was not to accuse you of bad faith or expose you to shame, but just to give other contributors notice that you are connected to those topics and have declared your connection already. In fact it is almost a favor to you and a good way to avoid future accusations by having your connection up-front. In no way did I intend to accuse you of POV edits to those articles, and in fact I do not believe that the template entails any such tagging. Please consider replacing them merely as an extension of your own userpage declaration of a connection to the Society of Jesus. Elizium23 (talk) 13:03, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop vandalizing the Wikipedia pages

I have noticed that you ("Epistulae ad Familiares") are vandalizing a large number of Wikipedia pages which are later reversed. Please stop this vandalism. Or else I will appeal to Wikipedia editorial board to take away your editing privileges. If you can, create some useful content — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kautilya1 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya1: I would like to invite you to explain how my edit on the biographical article Kaderbad Ravindranath, which aimed at removing extensive WP:PROMOTIONAL language, including WP:PEACOCK and WP:WEASEL terms and substantial WP:UNSOURCED content, as well as deleting an excessive collection of images that violates WP:NOTGALLERY, is considered "vandalism". Instead, you appear to be disruptively editing ([3] and [4]) by completely reverting my attempts at cleaning up, in favour of your preferred version of the article with all of the content intact, without any attempts at addressing these concerns.

It could be that you may be unaware that content on Wikipedia need to abide by certain rules. Consequently, I would like to invite you to read WP:COPO to understand Wikipedia's core content policies, and WP:BIODD to help you get started on how biographical articles should be written.

In addition, if you believe my behaviour to be truly appalling and unbecoming, you are certainly free to escalate this to WP:ANI. However, I would like to advise you that attempts to intimidate other users with the threat of sanctions, which you have no power to impose nor shown any grounds to demand, can be considered WP:UNCIVIL conduct and would reflect poorly upon your conduct should you ever decide to escalate this. Epistulae ad Familiares (talk) 13:53, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcoming new users

Is there any policy guiding this because I learnt from someone that be careful with welcoming due to that we may welcome vandals but 10 edits are required so just decided to ask you whether it true or not. And you just did that.Tbiw (talk) 11:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tbiw: Hello! There are no policies, but WP:WC has a non-compulsory guideline if one is keen on being a member of the welcoming committee.

I know it appears strange that I have sent a welcome to a possibly problematic editor, especially when the above guideline suggests not to thank vandals for their contributions. In fact, it might scandalise you even more if I were to tell that almost all my welcomes are directed at problematic editors. However, this is because I am largely a recent changes patroller, not a welcomer. As a patroller, I pick up problematic edits to revert and send userspace warnings to the users who performed them. By and large I give warnings to problematic editors, not welcomes. Consequently, when I do interact new users, it's almost always because they had performed some kind of problematic edit, be it vandalism or spam.

However, I would like to give the benefit of the doubt for new users who are on their first edit. For them, instead of only giving a normal level 1 warning, I instead give them qualified welcomes which combine a level 1 warning with a welcome message (such as {{welcomevandal}} and {{welcomespam}}). These messages, as a warning, point out the problem and violation to the user for their awareness, while, as a welcome, also outline the basic policies of Wikipedia they should abide by if they truly wish to constructively contribute. Of course, these do not delay a genuinely and persistently problematic editor from being blocked because these welcomes also count as level 1 warnings, and if that editor continue to persist in problematic edits, I'll continue to escalate the warning levels as necessary and finally report them as I would any other user. Ultimately, there's nothing to lose in taking a gentler approach, and everything to gain if the editor makes the choice in becoming more constructive.

I do this because I believe in WP:AGF - I believe that most people out there, even vandals, are just humans like you and I, and they do not come to Wikipedia with malicious intent, but out of a misguided idea of what Wikipedia is (personal entertainment, joke site, free advertising, etc). I believe in giving them a chance to realise that Wikipedia is greater than all that, while also reminding them that there are rules that editors must follow. I believe that greeting them warmly but firmly is the way to do that. Hence, this is why I intentionally send welcome templates to problematic editors who are new users.

I hope this helps! Epistulae ad Familiares (talk) 12:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes great . Thanks. Tbiw (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020

Uddermudder (talk) 14:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC) Thanks for your review and assistance. I'm trying to update a list of selected publications but it seems I cannot copy and paste? I had tried using the citation gizmo and entering DOI - great BUT it wants to use it as a footnote. What am I doing wrong? After several unsuccessful attempts I thought I'd just leave it for a bot to recognise the DOIs etc and automatically format them but presumably that was wishful thinking?[reply]

Cheers, Uddermudder (talk) 14:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Uddermudder: Hi, I believe you mean that you used the 'Cite' tool on Visual Editor to add a citation? That tool will always presume you are adding the publication as a reference (i.e. a footnote), so it will format it as a footnote. If you merely wish to use the template to format the publication details without converting it into a footnote, then I suggest manually inserting the template such as {{Cite journal}}, {{Cite web}}, {{Cite book}}, or any other appropriate one without using the 'Cite' tool.

At the same time, while we are on the topic, I would recommend you read MOS:LISTSOFWORKS (especially WP:BIBLIOGRAPHY) to understand how to format a list of works, as it appears you may be attempting to do. I hope this helps! Epistulae ad Familiares (talk) 09:36, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed, thanks for your guidance. Cheers Uddermudder (talk) 00:53, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uddermudder (talk) 03:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC) Thanks for your assistance Epistulae. I expect and welcome close scrutiny of biographical entries by fellow wikipedians,and I genuinely want to meet the high standards of an encyclopedia. I noticed a "Citation needed" notice next to the number of publications. I filled in the blank, but the actual wiki numbers are old; according to UNE[reply]

"Professor Rogers has published over 230 refereed research articles, 19 books, and 52 book chapters." https://www.une.edu.au/staff-profiles/science-and-technology/lrogers Would you please confirm and update the figures? I glad to see the page cleaned up a bit, cheers, but I believe some referenced information was erroneously discarded - e.g. "what she is known for" is covered in the Australian Academy of Science references. Regards

Timeline of largest passenger ships

With all due respect, if you would like to see a better alternative then please do the work and provide the reference rather than undo the edit and complain about it. There are tons of references in the target article that establishes Titanic's record for 1912. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Knowledgekid87: I'm sorry you feel this way and I thank you for your honest feedback. I presume you refer to yesterday's edit on Timeline of largest passenger ships that removed a reference that only cited another Wikipedia article which contravened Wikipedia's core content policy at WP:V (specifically WP:CIRC).

Removing a bad reference from an article does not mean disputing the content it was attempting to support (unless you believe me some kind of denier of the Titanic's sinking) or imputing any incompetence on the part of the editor who inserted it, it's just that a bad reference runs against Wikipedia's core content policy (as above) and guidelines (see WP:CITE) and it is well within any editor's prerogative to remove it when encountered, as it is the case with any other content that contravenes Wikipedia's policy. It's not a matter of personal preferences or stylistic issues but just following Wikipedia's core content policy. It also does not mean that any one of the previous editors were doing a bad job — if anything, your contributions to the article have been laudatory.

In any case, I have access to the desktop interface as well as more time today, so I have taken some time to copy and paste a reference from Sinking of the RMS Titanic into the article, which I hope may placate the issue. I am happy to have heard from you on this issue, and I hope this little discussion helped you understand my intentions and guide your future interactions with other editors. I wish you peace on your way. Epistulae ad Familiares (talk) 06:28, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the reference. I am well aware of WP:CIRC, I must have been too tired though to continue on the article so my apologies as well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 20

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Past accounts?

Have you edited Wikipedia with other accounts? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:50, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Snooganssnoogans: Hello! I have not. I assume you're asking because of our interaction on Mercedes Schlapp. As a recent changes patroller, the page was brought to my attention because of this act of vandalism. Noting the tone of the content which was being deleted, I attempted to rewrite it to conform with WP:NPOV. However, I note that you have reverted my edit, and that is well within your prerogative to do so. Epistulae ad Familiares (talk) 16:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I ask because you started editing at the same time that E.M. Gregory was running a bunch of sock accounts.[5] You and him have some overlap in editing. You also placed warning templates on the talk pages of other editors on your second day of editing[6] and sent "welcome" templates one week after starting[7], which are things that it's uncommon to see new editors do (and a pattern of behavior that E.M. Gregory engaged in). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:19, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Snooganssnoogans: If it helps, before I started this account, I began editing and patrolling recent changes as an IP for at least a couple of years, so I've been using templates including user warning templates for a while before registering. I started an account to take advantage of a watchlist, use Twinkle, and to keep my IP address private. This is my first account, and I certainly have nothing to do with E.M.Gregory and his socks. I hope this helps! Epistulae ad Familiares (talk) 16:46, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to RedWarn

Hello, Epistulae ad Familiares! I'm Ed6767. I noticed you have been using Twinkle and was wondering if you'd like to beta my new tool called RedWarn, specifically designed to improve your editing experience.

RedWarn is currently in use by nearly 100 other Wikipedians, and feedback so far has been extremely positive. In fact, in a recent survey of RedWarn users, 90% of users said they would recommend RedWarn to another editor. If you're interested, please see the RedWarn tool page for more information on RedWarn's features and instructions on how to install it. Otherwise, feel free to remove this message from your talk page. If you have any further questions, please ping me or leave a message on my talk page. Your feedback is much appreciated! Ed6767 talk! 16:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 27

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:13, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zouk

When you turned Zouk into a DAB page, you may have overlooked WP:FIXDABLINKS. The change broke 246 links, which will have to be repaired by hand. Narky Blert (talk) 11:24, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You also broke and duplicated Zouk (disambiguation). Narky Blert (talk) 11:45, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Narky Blert: Thank you for pointing it out! I shall move to fix the broken links. Epistulae ad Familiares (talk) 12:16, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 4

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:59, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Transport in Benin

Please have a look at Talk:Transport in Benin#Container port which has had the "puffery" removed, leaving the factual bits behind. ----MountVic127 (talk) 22:38, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

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) 03:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of hospitals by capacity‎

Whilst I agree with you that England and Scotland are not considered separate nation states, the column in the table is "Location". Suggest you change the column in the table if you feel it should be "Country". Best wishes, Millstream3 (talk) 17:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you may have misunderstood. I reverted because it is not consistent with typical style on transnational lists on Wikipedia to name a subdivision without appending the name of its "parent" country after a comma (e.g. "Texas" instead of "Texas, United States", or "England" instead of "England, United Kingdom"), even if the data field allows one to describe a more specific subdivision than just a country. If it is considered desirable to specify the subdivision, then the country name should still be included, even if it's just a de facto country (e.g. "Taipei, Taiwan"). Naming a subdivision without a country (e.g. just "Texas") in situations where the same data field for other entries in the list indicate a country could appear to assert the subdivision as at least a de facto country, which could be construed as WP:OR. Anyway, you've brought up a good point that might help avoid similar edit wars over this, so I've edited it as you've suggested. Epistulae ad Familiares (talk) 11:29, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think that's good solution! FWIF, "England, UK" is a perhaps bad example, as Scotland, England, Wales and are separate countries (but not soverign states). You would never see "England, UK" (etc) in use in the UK. Best wishes, Millstream3 (talk) 14:09, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

STOP STALKING ME

--90.186.224.80 (talk) 14:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "stalking" to insist that a {{Static IP}} template should remain on your talk page, despite your attempts to delete it contrary to Wikipedia policy (see WP:BLANKING). If you are intent on contributing constructively to Wikipedia, I invite you to begin by reading about Wikipedia's policies (see WP:5P and WP:HI) Epistulae ad Familiares (talk) 14:52, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

not able to understood ur msg

on 22 Feb u msg me for not using a reliable source can u tell me how to check reliability. The information I submitted was defiantly reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shivansh Singh 27 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Shivansh Singh 27: If you think it is reliable, then you should state and provide the source, not just claim that it is reliable. Please read WP:V and WP:RS on why it is important to cite your additions and how to do so. If you do not reference your edits to reliable sources, no matter how true you think they are, then those edits will be removed. Epistulae ad Familiares (talk) 08:32, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Boxer (armoured fighting vehicle)

Hello Epistulae ad Familiares (a good Wiki name, BTW),

I've just seen your 'issues' posting on the Boxer (armoured fighting vehicle) page. That's a page that even a blind person could see I've taken quite a lot of interest in during my relatively short time on Wikipedia. It's also one I'd like to keep spending time on as the subject is one that interests me, is very current, quite fluid, and not a static 'history' or even maybe tired article.

I should probably also just add, as it's perhaps relevant to a couple of your issues..., that I announce on my Surface Agent X2Zero page that I spent time working in the defence industry, and specify the wheeled vehicle section. I feel I should make it crystal clear to all interested in this discussion that was not the manufacturer of Boxer, or anybody even remotely connected with them.

And given the amount of work I've done on that article, and my history (which by default I guess makes me - to a degree - a SME) I'm keen to work at getting those issues resolved and their flagging removed.

I've just re-read the article through, and given it to somebody who has an interest in the subject to do the same, and asked them to comment on your raised issues. Just to have an outside option. I know that counts for squat, but it was more a personal thing.

So on the first point raised... I have to stress I'm not a 'fan', I'm interested, but I most definitely try very hard to write in a non-biased and acceptable to Wiki style. So in this instance, I'd ask you to maybe flag something to me that you consider to be written by a fan (not necessarily by me originally), and I will look at it, and if I see your point of view I will most certainly look at doing a re-write. I'm going to tie in the third point here also, and please flag anything to me that you think that comment applies to and the above suggested solution can be applied here as well. I genuinely do not read the words as 'fanny' or subjective, but let's see.

On the second point about detail, I have to say I couldn't disagree more on this one. The Jane's Yearbook entry from where I source a lot of information probably fits your description, and in word count alone is fourteen times that of the Wikipedia page. So no, I can't agree it's too detailed, even for Wikipedia. In fact, I think it's a good balance fact, figure, development and currency, and by default a good example of what I think we are working towards for all Wikipedia articles. Well, hopefully.

As to the fourth point. Additional citations? It already has 76 separate sources. Do we really need more? I always thought citing every paragraph was over-citing, but if you genuinely believe that on a word-to-citation ratio it's not up to Wiki standards (are there any?), I will happily add more. Just let me know, and if you can find some specific guidlines that I cannot, do please let me have them.

On the final point, I can categorically assure you there's no original research in that article. I know the subject well enough to know that sentence-by-sentence, no matter who added it, the content is all verifiable fact, and while not every sentence is cited, I guess it could be with time. I'm that confident. But again, if you'd like to highlight an example of what you consider may be original research, I will search and provide a citation for it.

I am relatively certain that within a few days we can have these issues resolved, but should we fail, I'm more than happy to throw anything we can't agree on to the wider Wiki community to see what the general consensus may be, and then act on that.

I have noted in the past that some editors appear to find it far too easy to hack and chop things based on a random interpretation of guidelines, and not maybe try a little 'talking' first. I am from the school of talk and not hack something I'm not really that well versed in, and so look forward to resolving these issues in a way all on Wiki should, and that maybe some should learn from.

Stay safe in these difficult times.SurfaceAgentX2Zero (talk) 13:38, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SurfaceAgentX2Zero: Thanks for reaching out to me. I'll try to go through the questions you have as succinctly as possible.

Firstly, thank you for clarifying your stake in the matter. I think it's quite clear to me that you possess a considerable amount of expertise and familiarity with the relevant sources on the matter, and it's been very beneficial to Wikipedia that you have been able to contribute this in relation to military vehicles. While I have no intention of calling you a fan or a paid editor, I think the point is that at times some parts of the article contain considerable amount of excessive detail like subcontractors, secondary contract clauses, and trivial features that give it a considerable fan-like quality. While you may feel that this is appropriate because it is already shorter than Jane's, even as it currently stands it remains far WP:TOOMUCH for Wikipedia. I cannot see how most Wikipedia readers would find it useful to know the value of every single contract, nor the exhaustive list of ancillary services that is attached to that contract, or the multiple trivial administrative and marketing steps that led to a contract being signed. The "History" section contains far too much of such information, and should be trimmed, if not for the sake that most readers do not need such information, but also for the sake of keeping the article readable.

Secondly, as regards original research and needing more citations, while most paragraphs are well-cited, what drew my attention was that there were still many paragraphs that are completely without citation. Now, we need not WP:OVERCITE by inserting many different sources for each sentence/paragraph, but generally, if one source generates content that spans several paragraphs, it is generally good practice to reinsert the same reference at the end of each paragraph to ensure that each paragraph remains verifiable. A paragraph or sentence without any clear reference may be easily challenged as unsourced information and removed. I believe that most of what you added can probably be publicly verified, but it still needs that tweaking to ensure that it conforms to Wikipedia's requirements on verifiability. This is particularly relevant to the sections "Design" and "Other variants...".

Time permitting, I'll try to help out in resolving some of these issues over the next few days. I appreciate the efforts you have put into trying to contribute content and I hope this doesn't discourage you. Take care! Epistulae ad Familiares (talk) 14:38, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Epistulae ad Familiares. Thanks for a swift and constructive response. I will again look at the main text, take on board your comments about some of the finer detail and probably combine tweaking that with the insertion of additional citations as required.

I may do a small 'chunk' and throw that back in your direction for comments/observations. How does that sound?

I may even make a start this afternoon. I'm 'retired' but seem busier than ever these days, and what with SWMBO being a nurse, I am spending a fair bit of time volunteering at our local vaccination hub. But do please bear with me and I'm sure you'll see improvements steadily flowing. Stay safe. SurfaceAgentX2Zero (talk) 15:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done a small chunk of History. Any thoughts?SurfaceAgentX2Zero (talk) 16:44, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SurfaceAgentX2Zero: Thanks! I think it's a good improvement in terms of succinctly summarising the salient details. Moving forward, I think we can take the discussion on to the article's talk page. In addition, regarding future edits, I encourage you to be WP:BOLD and proceed with edits as you may feel appropriate, and don't worry about seeking my or any other editor's approval for individual edits. Other editors can always make further improvements on top and/or provide feedback at any time if they feel that something is diverging from Wikipedia policy, and I would happy to engage you again on this (collabration being a key tenet of Wikipedia). Happy editing! Epistulae ad Familiares (talk) 15:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Norwegian Escape

Why did you delete my version? The information of the ship tonnage is not updated and the link is invalid. I just update the latest ship tonnage information. Please do not delete my version!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by NCL FANS (talk • contribs) 05:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

Merger discussion for Hindu views on monotheism

An article that you have been involved in editing—Hindu views on monotheism —has been proposed for merging with Talk:God in Hinduism#Merge proposal. If you are interested, please follow the (Discuss) link at the top of the article to participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. GenoV84 (talk) 00:42, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:List of largest museums

Hello, Epistulae ad Familiares. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:List of largest museums, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 04:01, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My sandbox

Help!!!!!!!!! My sandbox is not working!!!!!!!! Saved by God's grace (talk) 02:15, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Royal Caribbean Cruises

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Royal Caribbean Cruises requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Vitaium (talk) 07:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 13

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

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) 00:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting some article expansion help

Greetings,

Requesting your visit to Draft:Intellectual discourse over re-mosqueing of Hagia Sophia and article expansion help if you find your interest in the topic.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 14:09, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts Incorrect

1. by Évora, ok ... leaving Embraer 2 factories for 6 years composites & Structures... and also the spanish company who both them... What CASA they will deliver is unknown,,, why Portugal ... we can understand it is buying cheaper when Embraer left European Production... Anyway is less possible with European salaries, this Spanish firma be competitive with far distance supplying EMB Structures to SJC, USA and China but let's see...

2. About Genting Holding :

2.1 Having you seeing the Stock Hong Kong Exchanges Values Drop ??? with a price share with 0.6 it is impossible the fortune of Thai Casino 2.78 billionaire to cover a 3 billions debt

2.2 How can be the Global Dream as you did to wrongly still be delivered in 2021, when :

2.2.a the year 2021 was finished 15 days ago

2.2.b Global dream was only painted 90 % outside, interior half done

2.3 because of factor 2.1, Star Cruises 3 ships are almost 99 % stopped since long, this requires huge money for reputing in life

2.4 for sure the only Cruise Co under Genting which can save something is Crystal Cruises 3 oceans ships, not even the river ones could remain in Genting Holding Fleet. Also the two giants Meyer Werft cruises since long empty needs some reviews...

3. But understand, UK people has the Word in whole Europe and in Wiki World, if realistic or not, just wiki administrators know

4. Please be a little bit with hands off the articles better researched by me

5. Please do not come with bs blocks as well. goodbye. --90.186.219.36 (talk) 17:15, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you're trying to argue, but it appears tangential and irrelevant. Per Wikipedia policy, all content that is added to Wikipedia must be verifiable and attributable to what the sources explicitly state, and you must provide the sources.

Sources all agree that Genting HK's 'subsidiary' has filed for insolvency, but it is different from saying Genting HK 'itself' is insolvent, which no source has yet claimed. Instead they all say that it will likely default on (an albeit large amount) of debt, which is what Genting HK itself announcement. But until a reliable source says that Genting HK is itself insolvent, saying that Genting HK "must be" insolvent simply because we believe that their current assets would not cover their debt is only our personal conjecture and therefore considered original research, which is not allowed.

Likewise, nobody disputes Evora's factories are owned by Aernnova now, but per your own sources the factories were first built by Embraer in 2015 before being purchased by Evora in 2022. However your edit instead said that Aernnova built the factories in 2015 and also deleted the previous sources that verify the previous ownership by Embraer, which creates a factual error. Hence I edited it to reflect the fact that Embraer built the factorirs in 2015 and Aernnova purchased them in 2022.

I hope this helps. If you're new to Wikipedia I strongly recommend you read this simple and useful introduction to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Happy editing! Epistulae ad Familiares (talk) 23:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 24

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OpenStreetMap

I was concerned to see your edits on OpenStreetMap which excised significant sections of text with the rationale "unsourced". Wikipedia verifability policy says at the outset that Wikipedia's content policies require inline citations for all direct quotations, for contentious material, whether negative, positive, or neutral, about living persons, and for any material that has been challenged, or is "likely" to be challenged.

The text in question was of long-standing and was not in any way contentious. In reality, to an Open Street Map user, it was simply stating the obvious and the self-evident. In these circumstances a search is the much better option to deletion since deletion removes useful information. Alternatively , adding a {{CN}} will alert other editors to the need to find a reliable source for the challenged text.I have restored the deleted text and will look for further sources as time permits. Regards Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:33, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vellella

Thank you for your comments. I recognise your concerns and I respect your efforts, however WP:V is quite specific that any content is likely to be challenged must be supported by in-line citations or it is to be removed. The content that I have removed fits this exactly. There is nothing "obvious" or "self-evident" about sentences like "A complete set of UK 1 inch/mile maps from the late 1940s and early 1950s has been collected, scanned, and is available online as a resource for contributors." or "Globally, OSM initially used the Prototype Global Shoreline from NOAA. Due to it being oversimplified and crude, it has been mainly replaced by other government sources or manual tracing." These are contentious statements that are likely to be challenged and must be substantiated with a reliable source, without which they may also possibly be considered original research, which is also prohibited under Wikipedia's content policies.

Simply because a certain piece of content has been left in an article for a long time and nobody has pointed out that it is missing references does not automatically deem it "unlikely to be challenged" and "not in any way contentious", and fallaciously equates silence as consent. By that measure, anything added more than a few years ago and left unsourced can be considered "unlikely to be challenged", which is manifestly untrue and would protect a vast swath of junk edits on Wikipedia made in the early years of the website. The article on Wikipedia itself, while by definition is read only by Wikipedia users, itself also provides references to how the subject operates, because sans those references, it can be challenged.

Finally, I should point out that per WP:BURDEN, the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. While one may feel that "a search is the much better option to deletion", it is not the responsibility of other editors challenging the content to do the research for the content one desires to retain on one's behalf. Whether the content is useful or not is besides the point - if the content is considered important or relevant enough to be included then it must first be demonstrated to be WP:VERIFIABLE. I see that you have gone ahead to restore it, but I must encourage you to demonstrate verifiability. As a compromise, I have gone ahead to tag them with {{CN}} for the time being. However, if they remain unreferenced they can and must be removed. Take care and happy editing. Epistulae ad Familiares (talk) 15:20, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've removed the "multiple issues" warning at the top of the page because I think it is not really justified, and slightly counter-productive. Some of the statements do indeed need to be sourced, and it is great that they have been tagged accordingly. But, overall, this is a well-sourced article. Yet the warning at the beginning of the article makes it look like the article as major issues and is unreliable / low quality. I think the in-line calls for citations that have been added are sufficient. Best, Malparti (talk) 22:35, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A cookie for you!

I am still reading Wikipedia's policy pages. Your Jesuit post was well reasoned and helpful. Oltremontano (talk) 00:54, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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) 01:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your Username

My Latin is extremely rusty. I was hoping that you could refresh my memory as to what Epistulae ad Familiares means in English. 2603:6011:7501:7862:94CF:25E0:35C3:A72C (talk) 17:15, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unauthorized reversions and edits of the Libertad Coin page

Stop meddling and interfering in this page. The tables are posted for the benefit of collectors who rely on them. Unfortunately I am not an HTML expert and using Wiki Visual editor I was not successful in improving the flow of the text. That is not a reason to deleted useful information. In fact it takes zero brains to do so. If you have legitimate complaint state them and allow addressing those in a normal discourse. I have no idea wo the hell you are but based on the feedback and other articles I see here not a very bright and very opinionated individual. We can continue to play this game for months and years. I can revert all your edits constantly if you apparently have noting better to do with your time. Please address your topics here and we can try to figure out what to do but in the mean time stop touching the page Bullioncat (talk) 15:08, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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) 00:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]