User talk:Jpvandijk

Welcome!

Hello, Jpvandijk, 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
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! MaenK.A._Talk 08:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Advices

You might prefer to not show ur email, or to change its format:

bla.bla.bla (ad) enialgeria.eni.it.

Experience editors can write you an email on Wikipedia, if your option allows it (they do not need to know your email first). It is better to edit logged on ;) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 18:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Chris for the advice. Sometimes when I come in in the morning my computer shows me still logged in, but I notice a few minutes later that I have to re-log in, not always though. I have to take better care. Jpvandijk (talk) 08:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 09:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have second thoughts with spaces and blank lines that do not change the end layout. These changes load the watch lists. You can create a Surge tectonics page, but use a sandbox first (Surge tectonics). A new stub should be neat, otherwise the articles for deletion crew will devour it. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 08:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)User:Jpvandijk/Earth Sciences Bibliography[reply]

If ur network does not have access to mantleplumes.org. I can send u a document per email, if u need it. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 11:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a reference list on Timeline of the development of tectonophysics, in the Wiki Cite format ;) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll take a look at that, it looks a bit sterile, and of course shows many overlaps with other pages. But that is the meaning of a time line, ok :) Jpvandijk (talk) 16:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology, history, evolution... --Chris.urs-o (talk) 16:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are right, it takes time, chronology, history and evolution to sort all this out! :)Jpvandijk (talk) 17:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Chris, I hope you don't take my comments personally, I see the timeline page is almost 99 percent your incredible work! My compliments! I would love to help. I see we are both sort of bibliophils (is that english?). Is there a way we can create a repository of documents in Wikipedia instead of referring to unstable external links or commercial editors that sell the papers? And also to create a uniformity in the lists? Do you have an idea?Jpvandijk (talk) 17:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikisource has some documents without copyright. Wiki is a open source database, it won't allow to save copyright material.--Chris.urs-o (talk) 17:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, got your point, and I see that Wikisource actually creates an online readable copy of the work in question, a bit like Google Books.

I have been occupied with the question of geoscience databases since 1987, and I know how complicated the problem can get. I would like to suggest a simple solution.

First let me define the problem:

I see that on many Wikipedia pages the same references occur, which creates many duplications, and dispersal of info and difficult management of the links.
They are, furthermore, in the edible text inserted inside the text itself.

Maybe we can use the geodynamics pages as a test case to create a solution. Possibilities:

First possibility: We could create a page which just contains the references as a list with their links, and nothing else, to which all the other pages refer. This is a quick solution, rather simple and not difficult to realise.
Second possibility: Each reference should have its own page, with all the data and a discussion on the work itself. This is a lot of work, but it would be the best solution.

Jpvandijk (talk) 09:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well Wikipedia is not Wikitionary. The pages need lead, prose, content... We have google, google books, google scholar... Google scholar has many versions of a reference, the classics have even one university with the text online. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 10:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might suggest it to strategy.wikimedia or to Wikipedia:Village pump. The pages content stands quite alone. And you can add the Cite journal template with the doi=number and the User:Citation bot fills in everything. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 20:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plate tectonics

Are u sure with "Keith Runcorn in a paper in 1956" ??? Can't find a ref. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 16:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look it up and insert it tomorrow. The page is really accellarating! Compliments! Jpvandijk (talk) 16:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

U worked more ;) Never mind u had the ref later on, sorry. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 19:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Now each reference is double; as a "sfn note", as a "Harv". Looks good, we can trace also the amount of time each paper is referenced." Not good... Sysops/Admins won't like it, I'm afraid. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 16:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if there is another way to trace the amount of times the same reference is cited in the text, its welcome. But with the Harvard system I' didn't see an alternative. Is there a place where "sfn" usage is explained? Jpvandijk (talk) 14:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Citation templates, Template:Sfn --Chris.urs-o (talk) 14:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Ebollizione

A tag has been placed on Ebollizione, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a foreign language article that was copied and pasted from another Wikimedia project, or was transwikied out to another project. Please see Wikipedia:Translation to learn about requests for, and coordination of, translations from foreign-language Wikipedias into English.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ZhongHan (Email) 15:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I perfectly agree the page should be deleted it was placed there by error.

Plate tectonics

Vsmith spread some citation needed tags again on Plate tectonics#Gravity related driving forces. Do u have something at hand, or do we have to search?

Chester R. Longwell cites Reginald Aldworth Daly: "...seeks to substitute sliding for drifting, assuming that broad domes or bulges form at the earth's surface, and on the flanks of these domes the continental masses slide downward, moving over hot basaltic glass as over a lubricated floor."
Kerr, Richard A. (1995). "Earth's Surface May Move Itself". Science. 269 (5228): 1214–1215. doi:10.1126/science.269.5228.1214. PMID 17732101. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
More ideas? --Chris.urs-o (talk) 11:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Song lyrics

Please do not add song lyrics to Wikipedia, like you did at "I Only Have Eyes for You" back in January. They are almost always copyright violations; see the first part of Wikipedia:Lyrics and poetry. Graham87 03:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Graham, I suspected that actually, as I didn't find any lyrics of any song in Wikipedia.

Geology of Nepal

Hi, Geology of Nepal got complicated terms and copyvio problems. Would u like to make a 2¢ contribution? The article has a very nice collection of references. I'm going to read Rowley (1996), Guillot (1999), Upreti (1999), Catlos (2000) and DeCelles et al. (2001). But I'm not a structural geologist. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 08:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to find some time. Its of course a fascinating subject without any doubt...

--Jpvandijk (talk) 17:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thx ;) It could be a read once procedure, it is just a start quality class article. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 19:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Geology of Calabria

In May 2010 you added a good detailed geology section to Calabria. However, the numerous Harvard reference links (e.g. (Argand, 1916; Boccaletti and Guazzone, 1972)) without a corresponding entry in the reference section is problematic. These, especially the important "mile¬stones" ... list of a dozen or so Harvard tags need amplification with full reference details -- else they should be chopped as rather useless filler. Possibly add a "Bibliography" section below the ref section where these are expanded. Vsmith (talk) 14:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem you are right I didn't have time for this I'll correct it this morning straight away. (Jpvandijk (talk) 07:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks, Vsmith (talk) 18:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'll fix this now also in the other pages in the other languages dealing with the same arguments. Jpvandijk (talk) 07:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 25

Hi. When you recently edited Radio Caroline, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Klaatu (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) 09:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok fixed it. --Jpvandijk (talk) 09:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

Can I get a copy of these references on plate tectonics?
van Dijk, Janpieter; Okkes, F.W. Mark (1990). "The analysis of shear zones in Calabria; implications for the geodynamics of the Central Mediterranean". Rivista Italiana di Paleontologia e Stratigrafia 96 (2–3): 241–270.
van Dijk, J.P.; Okkes, F.W.M. (1991). "Neogene tectonostratigraphy and kinematics of Calabrian Basins: implications for the geodynamics of the Central Mediterranean". Tectonophysics 196: 23–60. Bibcode 1991Tectp.196...23V. DOI:10.1016/0040-1951(91)90288-4.
van Dijk, Janpieter (1992). "Late Neogene fore-arc basin evolution in the Calabrian Arc (Central Mediterranean). Tectonic sequence stratigraphy and dynamic geohistory. With special reference to the geology of Central Calabria". Geologica Ultrajectina 92: 288.
I'd like to read them. Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 04:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Chris I never read these comments. Send me your mail to janpieter.vandijk@burren.co.uk and I will send the pdf. the first one is not available online, the second one is available only through scientific confidential author - to - author mailing (because of copyright: otherwise you should buy it from Elsevier) and the third one is actually online in the Dutch library system but the copy is awfull, so I better send you as I usually do a high resolution pdf copy. --Jpvandijk (talk) 12:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 28

Hi. When you recently edited Enzina Fuschini, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trocadero (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) 14:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Enzina Fuschini

I've replied to you at length on the article's talk page but, in brief, my question about the notability is nothing to do with the earlier vandalism: I think it's a legitimate question and a debate worth having? 82.71.0.229 (talk) 21:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Before to embarrass yourself further, please read WP:DELETE and WP:AFD - the process for deletion was clear, open, transparent, and the discussion is available for reading. You had the opportunity to discuss it at the time. 6 editors providing policy-based arguments over more than the 7 day minimum is sufficient to determine WP:CONSENSUS on deletion - and indeed, it was not deleted, the relevant information was merged, and a redirect created - more than what often happens.

You truly do need to understand a whole whack of policies and processes before further comment. You also need to pay closer attention to those same processes - for example, you posted on WP:REFUND which CLEARLY states that if the article went through AFD, you cannot request its undeletion there.

Of course, by posting your original complaint at WP:RFD, you're actually ASKING for the redirect to be deleted permanently - and the redirect is the only think keeping the person's name on Wikipedia. If it gets deleted, then you've really shot yourself in the foot (proverbially).

First and foremost, however, guidelines for notability are very strict on the English Wikipedia. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments and for helping out dear user Bwilkins. But actually I would suggest to delete instead of redirecting, so remove the bullet from my (left) foot.

I agree that the process is available for reading. it is though, not at all objective and clear, nor substantial, nor rich of arguments. It is just a serious of empty phrases without any argumentation. There is a clear difference between a statement and an argument, hopefuly also in the English language. And I am just advising Wikipedia; be aware that personally I could care less of what is posted on one website in Internet or another after all. It's all part of evaluating how much time each of us should invest and for that I would also advise other editors to think twice. See my comments on transparency of editors, Wikipedia policy, future and difference between science and non-science.

Oh could you please help me finding the place where the information I carefully gathered and made available to Wikipedia was merged?

--Jpvandijk (talk) 12:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Click the redirect. It goes to a small segment of the Rafferty article that discusses the situation in a WP:NPOV, and non-overwhelming fashion. You clearly have not read WP:DELETE or WP:AFD based on your statement about "arguments" - this is POLICY, not "I like it". Note that I have deleted your poorly-thought out re-creation of the article under a different title: the AFD says an article about this person doesn't cut it - recreating as a live article is disruptive (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:09, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info Bwilkins, well let's give Wikipedia some time to think it over, that's better.

There is by the way nothing of all my work merged in this redirect. I would have seen it.

Anyway, after all, all this initial vandalism by Gerry Rafferty family members, mobbing and offensive talking both in Wikipedia (all now invisible for the public by this intelligent redirect move) and other net blogs, and discussion about deleting the page is just because there was a link to Gerry Rafferty on the furthermore rich page about Enzina Fuschini, which the British public has difficulty to cope with: If it would not have been there, I am convinced the page would have been accepted with pleasure by Wikipedia. A pity that not all of the episodes are available to be read by the public; they are sure interesting to analyse. But I respect that Wikipedia has to defend itself; it was actually in fact quite embarrassing to see how the website was being used, all this cross linking and desperate editing of pages.

Once again a reason to think well about what is objectiveness, what is Wikipedia all about, how it should evolve, what is it's possible future, and who is actually managing it. For me it was an interesting experiment, very propaedeutic, and a case history that can be investigated upon in the future. After the discussions I participated upon on Wikipedia policies, it was important for me to understand how Wikipedia is still related to old fashioned feelings and where the human aspect can still be detected; prejudice towards different nationalities, defence of family, religion, class, etc. In that sense it doesn’t differ so much from science, art, media and all other incredible human manifestations and why should it. Generating an enormous amount of procedures and rules, we did the same in science since long but it actually doesn’t help a lot.

Anyway let’s keep it up, lot of (more interesting) work to do here in WP.

--Jpvandijk (talk) 12:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give you time to retract your comments above: attributing actions to living people that violates our WP:BLP policies and will lead to a block. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I retract my comments. --Jpvandijk (talk) 13:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no intention to offend anybody or attribute actions to living people. I in fact refered to an already deleted user which used the name of living people. If you prefer I can edit or delete my comments from this page. --Jpvandijk (talk) 13:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And you are perfectly right: If you take a look at the discussion on the EF page, if still visible for you, you will notice that I myself made clear to another editor that the two (living people and the WP user with the same name) should not be confused, exactly because the editor I discussed with automatically supposed that these were one and the same. Sorry to have fallen in the same trap. I absolutely regret it, excuse myself and withdraw my words. --Jpvandijk (talk) 13:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You need to remove the unproven allegations above directed towards a living person/their family. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I removed them, I hope that was suffient, please let me know. I hope Wikipedia itself does not find the statements about WP itself offensive; It is always my objective to help the organisation to grow, not to tackle it with useless complains, the rest of my text was written in that spirit.

--Jpvandijk (talk) 13:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. If you feel there is sufficient notability, the information is properly sourced, meets neutral point of view and does not provide undue weight, you may expand the section on this person on the Rafferty article. Make sure, however, that WP:COATRACK and WP:BLP are respected (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Jpvandijk. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

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

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

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

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) 00:13, 19 November 2019 (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) 02:29, 24 November 2020 (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) 00:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Jam Nation

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 Jam Nation requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://realworldrecords.com/artist/408/jam-nation/ and https://realworldrecords.com/releases/jam-nation/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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. Gyrofrog (talk) 23:25, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I see no reason for this deletion and had no opportunity to comment. Have a great day. Jpvandijk (talk) 08:20, 18 November 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) 01:10, 29 November 2022 (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) 00:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

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) 00:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]