User talk:Mike Novikoff

Hi Mr. Novikoff!

Hi! I don't know quite what went wrong there. I think it was because I was using the visual edit mode, but thought I was doing the source editing. I'm glad the content wasn't lost. I would like to add to the signs and symptoms section, if that's okay. Also, would it make sense to move the "...x% cases ... multiple system atrophy" the the section below, "causes"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptiainSparkles (talk • contribs) 01:09, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I guess you're talking about this. Of course you can try to expand the article, just take care not to remove the existing content by accident, and make sure that your additions are based on reliable sources as described in WP:VERIFY, WP:RELIABLE and WP:MEDRS. I'd rather not give specific advices on that article's content since I've just been doing general maintenance on articles and don't know much about that particular topic; such things are better discussed on article's talk page or maybe at WikiProject Medicine. And remember to sign your posts on talk pages. Good luck! — Mike Novikoff 03:25, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

July 2019 lunar eclipse

Sorry for writing in Russian. Спасибо за спасибо! =) Что же касается [1] — забавно, но у меня тоже 9 этаж. Я как раз заранее подготовился, хотя условия очень плохие были. Но я правда уже третий раз попадаю в такую ситуацию (после июля 2018 и января 2019), поэтому выработалось терпение. Ждал, потому что до сентября 2025 "приличных" затмений не будет (будет в октябре 2023 года, но это так, меньше чем это). Использую сайт timeanddate.com для солнечных и лунных затмений — он мало того, что все затмения по конкретному городу показывает за любой период, большое оно будет или мелкое, но и, например, по той же Москве можно даже конкретное место выбрать (очень показателен пример с солнечным затмением августа 2026 — на северо-западе Москвы ещё как-то можно застать, а на юго-востоке практически нет). Так что готовьтесь и желаю успеха в съёмке будущих затмений! А то чего-то мало фотографий по России в последнее время. --Brateevsky ^{(talk to me)} 06:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Фотография получилась прекрасная, гораздо лучше, чем я мог бы сделать моей нынешней мыльницей. А я в этот раз даже и не знал о предстоящем, просто случайно выглянул в окно и удивился: не затмение ли это, не прогуглить ли? :) Пока гуглил, уже тучи набежали. Да, в другой раз надо заранее готовиться. Но хорошо, что этот вид всё-таки не упущен, спасибо на самом деле! :) — Mike Novikoff 07:19, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Crosswiki

@Michgrig: Thanks for still remembering me, but I don't feel eligible for ruwiki anymore. Your chat mates wanted to prevent something, didn't they? Well, they've quite succeed at that: they have effectively prevented all my future contributions there. To the point that I won't do any edit, not even reply to a message. Owing to our WP:BLANKING (which your ВП:ЛСО doesn't allow) I can reply here instead. Anyway, I don't have much to say except that of course I'm on your side in that discussion, but, on the other hand, I don't think that ruwiki can be significantly improved at all (and that's the main reason why I've abandoned it). It's a victim of a long-standing genocide, you know, and it's too late to try and change it. Much like the Brezhnev's Soviet Union. I'd be glad to see you in the more pleasant places – at Wikidata, for instance (unless you would import the unsourced stuff from WP infoboxes and categories, which is a real problem there). SY WBR [sincerely yours, with best regards]. — Mike Novikoff 23:50, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

@Wikisaurus: a reply to your ping. (Basically the same as above.) Do you really think that ruwiki is so precious that you can be "thrice indeffed" there and still go on? I see you can, but let me remind you that most decent people have much lower limits, they don't even need to be blocked at all to realize that nothing can be accomplished there and that they just have to leave. Indeed, there's plenty of such, most of them never to be publicly noticed. Not to mention what these bandits have done to my log, and now I'm really afraid of them. Long story short, I won't ever go back (even though I deeply regret that ruwiki will never be improved), so you can do whatever you want without asking me.

@Sealle: I won't do any personal NPA either, just see what you (and some of your friends) have done. — Mike Novikoff 01:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

2021

@Michgrig and Jack who built the house: Друзья, как думаете, стоит ли мне пытаться разбаниться в ruwiki, и как именно?

Тут ведь какое дело... Во-первых, мне очень трудно будет сформулировать первую фразу. По всему, я должен начать её с обращения. И это обращение будет – "Льлеги!". А чтобы поняли, придётся обьяснять, какие льлеги. Каловые! И чьи. "Каловые льлеги румовой мьмеги". Субоптимальной мьмеги, да. Сразу ведь мимо? Поэтому мне понадобится помощь в формулировке первой фразы.

Во-вторых, я вообще не уверен, имеет ли смысл разбаниваться в нынешней рувицкой ситуации. Имеет ли смысл идти по дороге Александра Мотина? Которого обессрочили, как и меня, по полному беспределу и абсолютно абсурдно: "заставлял админов разглашать их персональные данные" (когда он всего лишь попросил, будучи уже обвиняемым). Так и вижу: приковывал их наручниками к батарее и бил сапожищами по почкам, по яйцам, а Жанку (Zanka) ещё и по сиськам^{а не только по яйцам}, сапожищами-то, чего она и не выдержала. В последующем обсуждении, как и в моём, отмечали, что она абсолютно неправа и вообще охренела, но так и не сделали ничего (как и обычно, 0RR вместо прописанного в правилах 1RR). И вот самое интересное: после того, как АК его разбанил, какой-то нот-э-биг-диальщик забанил его снова, и это было воспринято как "ну ведь воистину бессрочник, чего с него взять"! То есть, достаточно хотя бы одного из 80 (или сколько их там сейчас), чтобы убить. (А этим козлам, разумеется, никогда ничего за это не будет).

Вот и думаю: стоит ли разбаниваться в таких условиях? Да и сделать-то что-нибудь конструктивное дадут ли вообще?

Особенно обидно иметь в логе формулировку "троллинг". Нечто такое, чего в моей голове вообще никогда не было, это банящий продемонстрировал свою "широту кругозора". А мне теперь жить с такой формулировкой в SUL. :( — Mike Novikoff 07:30, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Я на такое даже отвечать не хочу. Такое впечатление, что ты пьян. Michgrig (talk) 07:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Майк, всё просто: чтобы разбаниться, тебе нужно дать зарок (прежде всего самому себе) никогда не комментировать личности участников ВП. В том числе так, как ты делаешь выше. Держать это в себе. Потому что гарантирую тебе: в обратном случае, даже если тебя разблокируют, вероятность попадания обратно под бессрочку будет стремиться к 100%. Если тебе это не по силам, то пытаться не стоит. Jack who built the house (talk) 08:09, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

@Michgrig: Отчасти ты прав. Конечно, я выпил пару кружек пива ("zehn Biere im Sturzflug und die Eingangstür fest im Visier"), иначе не стал бы выдавать малую часть из того, что в голове всегда. "Что у трезвого в голове..."

@Jack who built the house: Ну да, именно такой tradeoff предполагается. Чтобы лещины, братчуки и биохазарды делали что хотят, а я не смел бы это комментировать. Даже на т.наз. "выборах", где выбор по-брежневски, аж из трёх пунктов: либо "за", либо промолчать, либо быть наказанным. (С этого-то у меня и началось). Ну вот не знаю, стоит ли оно того. С учётом <страйк>лога<not страйк> того, что полностью нормальной ruwiki вряд ли когда-нибудь будет. И всеобщее уважение я там теперь уж точно не получу. А это был один из главных моих стимулов: безупречность репутации. Мне надо было сделать 1000 *безупречных* правок, стремясь получить за это ПАТ согласно ru:ВП:ПАТ#Особые случаи, и не только не получить ПАТ (где же правила?!), но ещё и получить первое загрязнение лога. "С учётом" которого, etc. — Mike Novikoff 09:38, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Год назад, когда я писал, что "они ж меня теперь обессрочат вообще за любую реплику", я всё-таки думал, что это чуть-чуть слегка чудовищно преувеличено. А оказалось – $LITERALLY.
Вот интересно, кстати, из какого именно древнего ЯВУ взялось последнее? Читал в 1990 книгу 1978 года издания, подробностей теперь уже не помню. Году в 2005 получил от Гугла замечательное: HTTP 5XX. — Mike Novikoff 10:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Rollback granted

Hi Mike Novikoff. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits. See also: Hanlon's razor.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war. Especially keep the three-revert rule in mind.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:31, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Tobias, I'm really impressed by your careful investigation of my crosswiki contribs which is a right thing to do. A great contrast to my similar request in ruwiki two years ago (that was granted too, but an admin your age wanted me to plead rather than to study my contribs himself, and it took much public support to successfully close it). And yes, Hanlon's razor is my favorite topic since early 2000s when I learned it from /usr/games/fortune placed in my ~/.bash_profile. :) — Mike Novikoff 01:30, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Hey Mike Novikoff, sorry for the late response. I only saw your message today, and smiled. Perhaps it was /usr/games/fortune for me too; I'm not sure, but I once had a look at its huge text database. Thank you very much for the kind feedback. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:38, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Test edit at Verizon Wireless?

Hi Mike Novikoff, I see you left a message on an IP's Talk page concerning a potential test edit of theirs that you reverted. That same IP made a confusing edit to the Verizon Wireless page (see this edit).

Could you take a look at my Verizon Wireless Talk page request and revert the potential test edit from User:75.168.82.113 if you also think it was done in error? I work for Verizon (and have openly disclosed my conflict of interest wherever I ask for assistance) so I ask others to make edits on my behalf. Thank you, VZEric (talk) 19:34, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this IP's edits are weird. The edit in question is undone already, and I've also reverted two other similar edits by this IP, as I've said on Talk:Verizon Wireless. — Mike Novikoff 20:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Write-up on QR code marked as promotional

Hi, you marked my article

"In 2010, Glassco in India began to sell Volumetric Flasks with QR codes. Here QR Codes is being used on Laboratory Glassware specifically on volumetric glassware to enable the user to retrieve the calibration certificate that is given by the manufacturers gets lost during the usage and this certificate is needed to re-verify the lab glass. With the help of QR Code it has become easy to just scan the QR Code printed on the each glassware and retrieve the certificate that belongs to the glassware resp. This helps to save a lot of time to retrieve the certificates and also helps to save the paper. "

As promotional, can you please let me know how to make it non-promotional as I wrote it for educational purpose and dont have much knowledge regarding the same.

Thanks n Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ertarunz7 (talk • contribs) 04:28, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ertarunz7: I'll agree with this reply to you. Essentially, it's a matter of a weight of your subject (a particular company's equipment) in the context of the general topic (QR codes as such). Some subjects should not be included at all, some may be only briefly mentioned without a detailed description, and very few deserve an external link to the company's website. And determining subject's weight is all about providing the citations to the sources that are both reliable and independent. The latter – making sure that the source is third-party – is most important since it shows whether somebody else besides the company itself cares about it, and to what extent. — Mike Novikoff 22:35, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Stress marks in Russian

Hey, you removed the cyrillic spelling with stress marks from Vladimir Lenin page. I actually think that it's very beneficial to keep at least some. English speakers often have trouble placing the stress correctly in foreign names. So why not keep it? Berehinia (talk) 03:42, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

"People, when will you stop using the damned Ruwikian instead of Russian? Stress marks are not part of any Russian word and should be removed at sight (and even in the doomed ruwiki there wasn't ever a consensus to use them); see also WP:RUROM and WP:OVERLINKING"

The correct way to show the pronunciation in any language, including the stresses, is IPA which is already present there. (The stress mark goes just before the stressed syllable). I'm just shocked by the number of Russians who don't know that. — Mike Novikoff 04:20, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Maybe you should add a little tutorial on your user page for them ;) Berehinia (talk) 17:38, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that might be a good idea, as I do this kind of edits rather often, so that a shortcut might be useful for an edit summary. (In fact, my summaries are usually still shorter than the discussed one, like this). For a starting point, users may just read the present discussion. :)

BTW, I had often removed some redundant stress marks even in ruwiki, even though they don't use the IPA, and my edit summaries then referred to "ВП:УДАР, point five". Note that the IPA is mentioned on that page, and it's really a pity that a wiki in my native language is driven by the wrong people, so that they ultimately can't ever get anything right. Anyway, I hope we'll do it right in the Wikipedia here. — Mike Novikoff 20:10, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

At last, I've created WP:RUSTRESS for the purpose. — Mike Novikoff 00:50, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Question on another Verizon request

Hi Mike Novikoff, you helped me with a question last month. I am seeking help or guidance with an unrelated question. If you have a chance, can you take a peek?

Here is the issue. The Verizon Communications article contains a Finances section with an introductory paragraph discussing 2017 financials. I sought to have this edited to reflect the most recently reporter financial figures from 2019. A reviewing editor, User:Spintendo, declined to do so because the 2017 figures are correct for 2017. I pinged the editor who originally added the Finances section, User:Afus199620, to get their input on how to proceed. It has been a month and I have not heard back from those editors. Would you mind taking a peek at Talk:Verizon_Communications#Financial_information? I work for Verizon (and have openly disclosed my conflict of interest wherever I ask for assistance) so I ask others to make edits on my behalf. Thank you, VZEric (talk) 11:34, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Following up to let you know you can ignore this. The issue is resolved. Thanks. VZEric (talk) 21:19, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Template:Languages of Russia

Hello. You made this edit following to WP:DECOR but you violated the unification with the other similar templates Template:Languages of Guinea, Template:Languages of Canada etc. If you want delete the flag from Template:Languages of Russia, you must do the same in all the similar templates. It's desirable to open the discussion rather tnan you make so massive changes. In any case we must have either all the templates with the flags or all without. So I revert you edit--Unikalinho (talk) 16:38, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

The quote from WP:DECOR: "Human geographic articles – for example settlements and administrative subdivisions – may have flags of the country and first-level administrative subdivision in infoboxes.". This means that in our case may be the flagicon, because the term "language" relates to human geography--Unikalinho (talk) 16:43, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@Unikalinho: Of course all the flag icons within the navbox headings are subject to WP:DECOR and should be removed. I may not spot all of them at once, but I'm aiming to this. (Meanwhile, please note that we don't have ВП:МНОГОЕ here at enwiki, and furthermore we do have WP:ICON § Consistency is not paramount regarding these flag icons specifically, so there's nothing wrong with removing either "too many" or "too few".)

The sentence that you are quoting comes from WP:INFOBOXFLAG, and there are several points to note. First, please note the difference between a navbox and an infobox. We are now talking about the former, not the latter. Second, the paragraph heading reads "Avoid flag icons in infoboxes". Third, languages are by no means equivalent to "settlements and administrative subdivisions". The most important is certainly that a navbox is not an infobox, and WP:ICON does not approve the use of flag icons (or any other images) in headings of the navboxes at all. — Mike Novikoff 20:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I remain in my opinion. We can go to WP:3O and resolve the problem. But the situation in whitch the one template has the other decor among many similar, violates WP:POINT--Unikalinho (talk) 10:13, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@Unikalinho: I'm not sure what you mean by referring to WP:POINT. Did you even read it (esp. WP:NOTPOINTy), are you accusing me of being disruptive? Have you read my explanations above, should I repeat them? In short: (1) WP:ICON does not approve the use of any icons within the headings of navboxes; (2) I usually remove them when I see them, per WP:DECOR; (3) I have no obligation to act as a bot and to watch all the WP's navboxes at once, that's beyond my limits.

Surely you are free to ask for other editors' opinions. For instance, you may start with WT:Manual of Style/Icons to make clear what WP:ICON really prescribes. — Mike Novikoff 12:30, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

""Human geographic articles – for example settlements and administrative subdivisions – may have flags of the country and first-level administrative subdivision in infoboxes." -- clear written. And you cannot object the fact that the term "language" relates to human geography. This is firstly. And secondly: the similar pages in wikipedia must appearance similarly -- is one the main principles of the any encyclopedia. So, either all ttle language templates with the flag or all without. But the massive edits must have consensus, whereas your edits don't have it--Unikalinho (talk) 06:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

> articles ... may have flags ... in infoboxes
In infoboxes. Not in navboxes. See the difference?

As for consistency and uniformity, let me assure you that I've always been supporting it (and Manual of Style is indeed my most favorite of all the WP guidelines). So, if you care that much, we might just go ahead and fix the rest of the language templates. Some of them don't have these flags already, and I've fixed Guinea and Canada that you've mentioned earlier. Consensus is almost never a concern when implementing various parts of MoS (since MoS itself is clearly a consensus thing), just be sure to put the relevant shortcut(s) in the edit summaries. — Mike Novikoff 09:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done removing flag icons and tidying for category:Europe language templates. — Mike Novikoff 01:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

 Ditto for category:Asia language templates. — Mike Novikoff 06:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

 Ditto for category:North America language templates and its subcats. — Mike Novikoff 03:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

 Ditto for category:South America language templates. — Mike Novikoff 04:32, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

 Ditto for category:Africa language templates. — Mike Novikoff 06:20, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Unikalinho: For the record, you've posted this at WP:3O without even notifying me. Anyway, it was corrected and finally dismissed altogether later on, and none of my abovementioned edits were reverted or even amended by anyone, so I can safely say there is a silent consensus for them. (The best way of achieving a consensus that I'm enjoying ever since registering my account here at WP in 2012). I can even thank you for inspiring my tedious job, since it makes all these templates comply with MoS now. — Mike Novikoff 06:20, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Я Вам тогда тоже отвечу на русском, как Вы это сделали другому коллеге. Итак, Вы утверждаете, что я не сообщил Вам о своём намерении обратиться на WP:3O, но Ваше утверждение не соответствует действительности (пруф). Вы в ответ сказали, что я могу спросить других пользователей. Так что Вы отлично знали о моём намерении, и был консенсус за моё обращение на WP:3O. И в таком случае Вы должны были подождать на решение по этому вопросу, и тогда можно было бы, в случае удовлетворительного ответа, сделать массовые изменения ботом. Вы же, не дождавшись решения, самовольно сделали массовые изменения, а это есть неконсенсусные действия. На мой запрос, возможно, рано или поздно будет дан ответ, но я не исключаю того, что обращусь на WP:RAA. Насчёт ВП:МНОГОЕ, Вам коллега уже всё обьяснил--Unikalinho (talk) 09:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

It's getting rather boring. No extra approval is required to implement the established guidelines (if it wasn't the case, we'd just never get anywhere), and WP:CONSENSUS "does not mean unanimity" (so you can't stonewall the MoS). Your request at WP:3O is already removed, and you definitely should remind yourself of WP:OTHERPARENT before you consider any other steps.

Please also note that my conversation with Abiyoyo below wasn't targeted at you, and you are taking it completely wrong. Just in case you don't know, he habitually removes these flag decorations and unusual navbox colors just like me, particularly in ruwiki, so it's simply a kind of a crosswiki "experience exchange". — Mike Novikoff 23:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@Abiyoyo: We don't have the infamous ВП:МНОГОЕ here at the WP, do we? ;) — Mike Novikoff 06:20, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't know, but it seems that WP:BOLD does not contain it as an imperative, but warns to be careful. Quite more relaxed than in ruwiki as it seems.--Abiyoyo (talk) 06:47, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. I just wanted to remind you of discussions like this (which ultimately made me leave ruwiki: "The sooner you get out of Oz altogether, the safer you sleep, my dear"). I'm really sorry that we coulnd't make ВП:ДЕКОР there as strong as WP:DECOR. — Mike Novikoff 07:56, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

The one who wants to change something in a quite a conservative milieu has to be patient. And has to be there also.--Abiyoyo (talk) 09:19, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

После того, как я "утратил доверие ОнВамНеДимон'а", прямо как тот Лужков, они ж меня теперь обессрочат вообще за любую реплику, и это испортит мне SUL, который я создавал совсем не у них и не для них. Мои реплики там, разумеется, не будут вежливыми, я скорее сам себе отрежу яйца и съем их на завтрак, чем стану употреблять слова типа "коллега" по отношению к получившему трояк по русскому языку второкласснику, называющему себя "доцентом МГТУ". Нет, не смогу никак, увы. Лучше быть в ВП, где правила реально работают (и даже можно в любимом MoS вылизать каждый байтик до блеска). — Mike Novikoff 11:11, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:Stress marks in Russian words

I would like to inform you that I have userfied your essay. I think your point of view is unconventional and your reasoning is flawed. In any case such a serious matter as removing stress marks from everywhere requires a serious, thorough discussion. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:35, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@Moscow Connection: In fact, it's a matter of presenting the correct verifiable spelling instead of a misleading original research. (How many reliable sources use these stress marks at all?) Yet you haven't given a single reason why a distorted spelling should be preferred to the correct one. It's not much helpful for indicating the pronunciation (we have IPA for that, so it's at best redundant), and it's just plain wrong representation of the spelling as such. Do you have any reason other than the traditional ruwikian "stress marks are needed because they are needed"?

Please also note that your action is rather aggressive. An essay simply states some facts and opinions, it does not pretend to be a policy, so you shouldn't start with moving it away just like that. — Mike Novikoff 11:11, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

1. It is common practice for Russian encyclopedias to mark stresses.
2. Are you saying it's impossible to find the correct stress for "Lenin" [2]? The Great Russian Encyclopedia has the stress marked:[3]. And the Great Soviet Encyclopedia: [4].
3. See Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue. Irrefutable, well-known facts don't need explicit sources. If you are unsure if the stress is marked correctly, you can just find an online recording of a Russuan-language news show, a recording of an interview with the person in question or something like that. And, by the way, in your essay you are suggesting to replace the current notation with IPA transcriptions, but the IPA transcriptions would be equally unsourced.
4. You used your essay in an edit war. A user said to me [5] that you reverted her and directed her to the rule (or essay, or whatever it is). And it wasn't all, she even started making edits based on your newly-written and nonconsensual rule. I had to stop her and explain that your page was just a personal essay, not a rule. So your essay had already done some harm. --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:35, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

@Moscow Connection:

1. Yes, and my essay even says this explicitly. But enwiki is not a Russian encyclopedia. It's a place where most readers and editors don't know Russian at all, they don't even know what a Russian stress mark is. They expect to see the correct sample of a Russian spelling, and they find a distorted one instead. Worst of all is that it's the only sample they find, and they might don't even realize the pitfall. They'll just think that Russian is something like Czech or Spanish and that they've got the correct spelling already. Have you ever seen these stréssed námes imported into Wikidata as P1559 ("name in native language") or P1477 ("birth name"), and do you think it's right? That's what I'd call a real harm in the end!

2. It's trivial to find whatever you want about Lenin, esp. in Soviet Encyclopedia. Now what about Poklonskaya, Navalny and thousands of such? And do you know a slightest hint for a pronunciation of "Евгения Куйда"? :-) That's what I've always said: in 95% of the cases it's trivial (for us Russians) and thus redundant, and in the remaining 5% it's an awful WP:OR.

3. It's great that you mention WP:BLUE, it's one of my favorites for some six years. I've always appreciated an excellent photo of a blue sky there, yet a real fun has always been to look at both blue and red, as shown in WP:NOTBLUE.
But yes, it's essential that IPA is used while a Russian spelling remains clean. Don't you agree that it's the only way we can show both correct pronunciation and correct spelling? And, as my essay says, IPA is already present in most of the articles that need it.

4. Please be careful with such wording, you definitely should know what constitutes WP:EDITWAR and what doesn't. Thanks for reminding me of Abbyjjjj96, I guess it will be fair to invite her (are you sure about the gender?) to the discussion.

And let me quote Ozzy: "Slow down! You're moving way too fast...". Really, you shouldn't act in such a rage. — Mike Novikoff 02:30, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for inviting me to the discussion (and yes, I'm a woman), but I'm afraid I don't speak Russian and thus wouldn't have anything of use to contribute. Best wishes. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 06:42, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have time to read this now. I'll look at it later.
But could you please not start edit warring at "Natalia Poklonskaya"? This was not only impolite, but didn't comply to WP:BRD. I simply reverted to the old long-standing (and therefore consensual) version, that's all. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:42, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

1. I don't think stress marks can do any harm. 2–3. Yes, WP:BLUE applies here. Btw, I bet you won't find the IPA transcriptions of "Vladimir Lenin" or "Natalia Poklonskaya" anywhere, yet you aren't opposed to leaving them in the articles.
"IPA is already present in most of the articles that need it."
— No, it is not.
"And let me quote Ozzy: "Slow down! You're moving way too fast..."."
— I'm not even doing anything. I've simply reverted a couple of articles to the long-standing and consensual versions. If you stop removing stress marks, there's a chance that we won't meet again. --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:09, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

@Moscow Connection: You have already done a lot of harm, including a move war, casting aspersions and incivility, not to mention weird edits like this. (In the latter you go against WP:OVERLINKING and WP:RUROM.)

My essay exists since 8 September, and you are the only one objecting to it so far. Yet you haven't provided any reasons except that you don't like the clean spelling and that we presumably should mimic Soviet encyclopedias of the past century (should we copy their ALLCAPS too?). — Mike Novikoff 23:30, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

1. I haven't done anything at all, I just restored some pages to their consensual state. 2. Your essay is very controversial and is nothing but your personal opinion. And it had close to zero views, so it may just be that I was the only one to actually read it. --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:42, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

@Moscow Connection: Are you saying that this is "nothing at all", really?

It is controversial only to you, and you still haven't provided any valid reasons why these stress marks should be included. Whereas I'm removing them for a couple of years already, and almost never got any objections thereof. My essay is simply a developed form of my usual edit summaries, and it had been suggested by a user in the discussion above. — Mike Novikoff 00:30, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I've provided a valid reason: serious Russian-language encyclopedias have stress marks. --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:20, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

You are just repeating the same arguments over and over. I maintain my objection, so please don't remove stress marks anymore. --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:16, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@Moscow Connection: I have to repeat my arguments because you don't seem to hear.

But enwiki is not a Russian encyclopedia. It's a place where most readers and editors don't know Russian at all, they don't even know what a Russian stress mark is. They expect to see the correct sample of a Russian spelling, and they find a distorted one instead. Worst of all is that it's the only sample they find, and they might don't even realize the pitfall. They'll just think that Russian is something like Czech or Spanish and that they've got the correct spelling already.

Note that the readers of Russian encyclopedias see the correct Russian spelling at least in the article title, whereas here in enwiki it's not the case. So why do the readers of English Wikipedia should see a distorted spelling instead of the correct one, and why the correct one should be totally absent? — Mike Novikoff 03:24, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't think stress marks distort the spelling. --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:57, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I've told you several times already that your talk page isn't the right place to discuss the matter. If you want something changed in the Wikipedia rules/conventions, you need to start a wider discussion. Could you please stop pinging me from here? I've got other things to do, and I'm getting frustrated with having to return here again and again and hearing the same arguments. --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:57, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Also, please note that deleting my warning is not helping your case. The important thing is that you have been warned not to edit war. --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:57, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

To summarize: you don't have a valid reason, yet you insist that I just obey your demands. And you refuse to continue the discussion that you have started yourself, leaving a threat as your last word.

Saying that a distorted spelling is not distorted is nonsensical, it's like you never used and never even heard of any search algorithms (most of which will fail to compare the differently spelled words, unless a special care had been taken in software). English Wikipedia never had a rule regarding this particular aspect of the Russian language (even ruwiki hadn't), so there's nothing to change at such level, it's just a matter of common sense and further reasoning.

And remember that I've already told you to stop your aggressive actions against me and my edits. You may likewise consider it a warning if you like. — Mike Novikoff 13:00, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

To summarize: I have valid reasons to revert and to request that you stop removing stress marks. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:16, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Your reasons being "enwiki should resemble Soviet Encyclopedia" and "altered spelling is equal to non-altered, and thus is to be preferred". :\ — Mike Novikoff 19:05, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Your messages on my talk page

Could you please stop coming to my talk page? I simply reverted your messages, I had the right to do it. If you stop deleting stress marks, you'll never see me again. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:53, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Of course I won't stop correcting the (Russian) spelling. You've never provided a valid reason, neither here nor at another user's talk page. Be warned that it's you who are edit warring now, and your attitude ("I can't allow him to do it") also appears to constitute WP:HOUNDING. — Mike Novikoff 18:55, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind my comment here. I happened to notice this disagreement. I tend to agree with you, Mike Novikoff, about the stress marks, especially if IPA is present or added. However, I don't think your approach to resolving this is the best one. I would suggest starting a discussion or RFC somewhere. I am not quite sure what the right place should be. Please consider doing this. Thanks. Retimuko (talk) 20:37, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:DECOR on Template:Potato dishes

Template:Navbox actually literally says of such an image field that "typically it is purely decorative", so there's a bigger clash going on here. Should they all go? Reading the icon policy I'd have thought these would fall under "visual cues that aid the reader's comprehension", when chosen well - in this case it's showing at even the most cursory glance that the navbox is about potatoes. --Lord Belbury (talk) 19:08, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I think MoS (that WP:DECOR is a part of) takes precedence over any template's documentation, and if there's a contradiction between the two, the latter should be edited to comply. Indeed, most of the images within navboxes are purely decorative, and therefore should go. I'm not sure how an image of potatoes will improve the comprehension of a navbox that is already titled "Potato dishes" (and the reader sees that even before he expands the navbox). A rare example of a navbox with an image that really aids the comprehension would be this one: a map shows (in green) the location of a region within the state of Kazakhstan, and this is consistently implemented for all state's regions. — Mike Novikoff 17:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, fair points, I'll raise it at Template talk:Navbox. --Lord Belbury (talk) 17:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Stresses in Russian

Hello, please stop reverting my edits, or I'm gonna report you for disruptive editing and dishonest behavior. You're referring to Stress marks in Russian words, which is an essay written by you. There is no consensus upon this topic. Thanks. P.S. Moscow_Connection Please have a look. Taurus Littrow (talk) 19:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Of course it's an essay, it's clearly stated there. It states some reasons, and do you have any reasons to the contrary? — Mike Novikoff 20:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The reasons to the contrary were listed above by Moscow Connection, and I agree with them. Taurus Littrow (talk) 20:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

His only reason seems to be "some Russian encyclopedias do this", and he never explained what does it have to do with English Wikipedia. Can you please elaborate? — Mike Novikoff 20:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll report you to a higher authority if you don't stop. Taurus Littrow (talk) 20:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Look, it's your burden to prove your point in a discussion, yet you don't even try it. You're just trying to frighten and force me instead, right away. This is not how things should be done. — Mike Novikoff 20:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Please don't victimize yourself. It was you who reverted my edits to start with, and in doing so you referred to your own essay, which is obviously "not how things should be done". You also referred to Romanization of Russian, which is completely misplaced since the article in question speaks about the transliteration of Russian, not about how names should be written in Cyrillic. So please just stop reverting other people's edits until there is a clear consensus on the topic in question. P.S. Something should definitely be done with your essay. Taurus Littrow (talk) 21:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

According to WP:BRD, there's nothing wrong with reversion of a bold edit. Furthermore, WP:BRD says "be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed", so there's nothing wrong with linking to an essay either, it's a common practice with various essays. In this edit I've also referred to WP:RUROM since I've additionally corrected a transliteration there. And it's you who have started an edit war by reverting my reversion instead of discussing it first. Even now you are talking about my alleged wrongs instead of focusing on a content, you've provided no reasons for your point whatsoever. Simply stating that "there is no consensus" doesn't mean that you win, does it? And stress marks within a transliteration is a wildest nonsense. — Mike Novikoff 22:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

1) Your edit summaries are highly misleading, as I already explained. 2) I said nothing about stress marks within a transliteration; I was talking about the way Cyrillic name should be written, and the article you referred to says nothing about it. 3) No, it was you who "started an edit war by reverting my reversion instead of discussing it first". You removed the stress marks I had added to 5 articles. 4) I repeat, your behavior is highly dishonest and uncooperative. I truly hope some measures will be taken against you. This is a serious encyclopedia, not some obscure forum. Taurus Littrow (talk) 22:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Have you read WP:BRD yet? I've reverted your bold edits, and you've reverted the reversions instead of discussing them. Please also see WP:NPA and stop making ungrounded accusations.

Stress marks within a transliteration are here: Nikoláy Andréyevich Rimskiy-Kórsakov (instead of the correct Nikolay Andreyevich Rimskiy-Korsakov). What do you think it is and why do you insist on that?

Will you ever start to explain why do you put these stress marks at all? — Mike Novikoff 23:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

1) You reverted my (and another user's) edits even if you had been asked in the past not to do so. Clearly a non-constructive behavior. 2) I mentioned nothing about accents in transliterations; I was talking about the Cyrillic forms. The problem with you is that you removed the stresses from both the Cyrillic and transliterated forms at the SAME time, and now you're trying to play the innocent and accuse me of claiming that accents should be kept in transliterations (something I never claimed). 3) I already explained that "the reasons to the contrary were listed above by Moscow Connection, and I agree with them". There is no need to repeat the same arguments ad infinitum. These arguments are plenty and quite valid, despite you repeatedly trying to ridicule and belittle them. 4) Read here The Bushranger said "Now if they [i.e., you] were challenged on it [on reverting other people's edits] and they then point to it [your essay] as if it were a guideline, that would be an entirely different matter." – This is exactly what you have been doing, which is completely inacceptable. Taurus Littrow (talk) 06:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Before we add another ton of words, can you please say directly and clearly, what are your reasons to put the stresses in English Wikipedia? Of what "listed above by Moscow Connection" I see only one (a reference to an old Russian custom), and it has nothing to do with enwiki. — Mike Novikoff 07:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

"I see only one (a reference to an old [sic!] Russian custom)" – Have a better look. Moscow Connection is also referring to the Great Russian Encyclopedia, which is NEW rather than old. He is also referring to the highly prestigious Great Soviet Encyclopedia. Furthermore, stresses are used on Russian wiki. So there's obviously nothing wrong in using stresses in encyclopedias. Really, I'm kinda tired of this discussion (my patience is not infinite), and I already proposed a solution here. To sum it up, accents can be used for guidance purposes, but not on a mandatory basis. If you (or anyone else) see them, leave them as is, and if you don't see them, you don't have to add them. Taurus Littrow (talk) 08:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Russian wiki is not a reliable source, and even if it were, it never had a consensus on that. And a couple of Russian encyclopedias represents exactly an old custom (that happens to still survive in some areas). "But enwiki is not a Russian encyclopedia", etc.

Another example of such a custom is their tradition to capitalize the article titles. Should we adopt that too? No, we have MOS:ALLCAPS instead. — Mike Novikoff 19:20, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

"A couple of Russian encyclopedias"? Ha-ha, you're really good at distorting the reality, aren't you? It's like saying that "a couple of people" still use the Cyrillic script. All major Soviet/Russian encyclopedias and dictionaries have been using the stresses for 200 years, and you're claiming that it's only done by "a couple of encyclopedias". Really, this is ridiculous. And this is yet another proof that you're incapable of holding a constructive dialogue to reach an amiable solution. You're just pushing your agenda. I'm shaking my head in disbelief. Taurus Littrow (talk) 19:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

"An old custom that happens to still survive in some areas". In some areas? Are you aware that the Great Russian Encyclopedia, published only recently (between 2004 and 2017) by the Russian Academy of Sciences, uses accents? What can be more reliable and more prestigious than that? Really, I recommend you to stop treating me and other native Russian speakers like idiots. You could probably fool foreigners, but not me. Будь здоров. Taurus Littrow (talk) 20:12, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Please, could you just stop? --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@Taurus Littrow: Yes, the user acts in violation of WP:CONSENSUS. But what can I do? It will probably take several hours to revert his edits now. (By the way, I have tried to raise the issue at ANI. Here.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Unbelievable. Taurus Littrow (talk) 20:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I do not have a particular opinion whether stress should be present or not, but it needs to be discussed at the talk page of WP:MOS. Writing this in my role as uninvolved administrator.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Here you are: WT:MOS#Stress marks in Russian words — Mike Novikoff 13:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

That wasn't intentional

Calm down, I already explained on the MoS page that I didn't notice your comment was there. Next time don't do two clearly different actions in the same edit. You did this in the past, when you removed the stresses both from Russian words and the Latin transliterations in a couple of articles. — Taurus Littrow (talk) 21:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with making several types of changes within a single edit; in fact, that's what I always aimed for from the very beginning. If you don't see what the diff shows, blame your attention. And see also ru:ВП:Правочный минимализм. — Mike Novikoff 21:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Anyway, you have a very long history of reverting other people's edits, so you're not in a position to complain on that. I just assumed you were doing this once again. You know that story with the shepherd and the wolves. Have a nice day. — Taurus Littrow (talk) 21:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

What you are talking about? Of my history of reverting and warning (and sometimes even reporting) the blatant vandals? What does it have to do with anything else? — Mike Novikoff 21:43, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm talking about you 1) removing stresses and 2) reverting the edits of users who tried to put them back. 3) Also, your recent reversal of the edits to your essay. — Taurus Littrow (talk) 21:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

"Duh!", as EEng would say. You'd better reply to this or that. — Mike Novikoff 22:07, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Here you are. — Taurus Littrow (talk) 22:41, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Taurus Littrow has been indeffed and furthermore globally locked. Now I wonder how to clean up all the mess, particularly at the ongoing MoS discussion that became somewhat flooded. — Mike Novikoff 16:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Man, this is beyond words. I have stalked my way through the history of the "dispute" and it leaves me (almost) speechless. Next time (hopefully not) you can go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages as early as possible for community input, usually you will get quick support when it comes to fight off blatant nonsense. –Austronesier (talk) 14:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Animals (Pink Floyd)

Hallo, I don't know if you're an admin. I saw you've been participating in the Pink Floyd's Animals edit, so you may know something about the strange behaviour of a tag in the explanation of the liner notes controversy. Sorry for my English, I'm not a natural English speaker. Have a nice day. --Wikit2006 (talk) 05:56, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Wikit2006: I'm not an admin, I've just been watching this page for a while. I guess the controversy that you are talking about is this edit followed by a reversion. Sure, it would be better if LowSelfEstidle had described his edit in a summary, but otherwise it seems to be OK, since the original edit constitutes WP:COPYVIO. — Mike Novikoff 22:10, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

MOS:SEAOFBLUE

Hello, thank you for your edit, I was just wondering, what did I do wrong with the Navalny edit? I am a new editor so I am working to improve my edits. Thanks, --ZarathustraShah (talk) 07:17, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

As for this edit, there is a part of Manual of Style called MOS:SEAOFBLUE that says: "For geographic places specified with the name of the larger territorial unit following a comma, generally do not link the larger unit". If anyone wants to follow a link to a larger unit, they can click on a smaller one first, and see it there. Additionally, very well-known items such as Moscow and Russia should almost never be linked, per MOS:OVERLINKING. — Mike Novikoff 09:07, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

David Burliuk

Hi Mike, I am an Art Historian and I study David Burliuk. Please leave his page alone. I'm sorry if his nationality and heritage offend you. If you keep reverting the edits, I will report you.O0vent0o (talk) 17:51, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@O0vent0o: With edits like this or that you ain't gonna prove nothing but your bias and unfamiliarity with Wikipedia policies, most importantly with the basics: no original research, verifiability and citing sources. There are many other pitfalls on a narrow path of insisting on unusual and controversial statements, so my best advice to you is to start with spending some time on studying the WP rules.

Please leave his page alone. – You don't mean you're an owner of the page, do you?

nationality – See nationality. And remember that Burliuk died long before the Belovezh Accords of 1991.

offend you – Wikipedia is not about emotions, it's about the reliable sources and their weight. And I'll not be offended if someone says that John Lennon was a Japanese, although I'll certainly revert that.

I will report you – Beware of the boomerang.

Perhaps it's time to start a discussion on the article's talk page. The guidelines prescribe that it should be the first thing to do. — Mike Novikoff 19:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

You should know how to properly use edit summaries by now, but you've made two inappropriate ones today

Not sure what your fascination with Yahweh is all about. Doug Weller talk 17:53, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

There is no fascination; in fact, I'm not religious and I know very little about it. Perhaps my first summary should indeed have been much shorter, I'm sorry for that. And as for my second edit, I really don't know why there should be "was" instead of "is" in the definition. Anyway, I'd better stay away from this topic altogether. Sorry if I have offended someone. — Mike Novikoff 16:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 17:41, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, should have said "was" is better because we are talking about ancient kingdoms. Is implies they still exist. Doug Weller talk 17:43, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

February 2023

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Michael60634 (talk) 05:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Unsolicited advice

Mike, they're not joking about a TBAN. Having watched what occurred at the Putin article, I do think there was some wrongdoing on your part, and I urge you to own up to it and commit to change. You shouldn't be edit warring over the MOS, using edit summaries instead of discussing things on talk pages, or saying something like "next time you revert it I'll report you to WP:ANI, the case will be indisputable" in an edit summary. I'm not saying this was all on you, and I'm slightly more frustrated with the other editor's behavior. I think the attitude with which you approached the ANI discussion, your higher level of experience, and the prior dispute are counting against you here. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:07, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern. Indeed, I've been too nervous recently, and I can explain why. Since December I've been under yet another cross-wiki attack (mostly on Meta and Commons) by an LTA who hounds me for more than a year now, and even though they got blocked again, I'm already sick and tired of debates and quarrels. Maybe I just need a break. And it's even more frustrating to hear accusations of trying to hide when I'm not online for just two days.

Certainly, I shouldn't be edit warring over the MoS, and usually I don't have to. One of the reasons why I like gnoming is that it's one of the most uncontroversial parts of editing. And, with my Linux background, I always do RTFM before doing anything technical, so it's not that "I'm always right", it's rather "the manual says so". Although I'm probably guilty of some impolite remarks, I have to admit it. — Mike Novikoff 17:00, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry to hear it MN. I like gnoming too, though it often does end up being controversial. I've been sucked in deeper on a few MOS debates than I'd like to. On a good day, I tend to just move on to places where there's less pushback. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:39, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

“ Do you suppose there is such a place, Toto? There must be. It's not a place you can get to by a boat or a train. It's far, far away. Behind the moon, beyond the rain. Somewhere, over the rainbow... ” — Dorothy Gale, The Wizard of Oz

Still, let's hope the things will settle down now. What else can I hope for? — Mike Novikoff 07:35, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Mike Novikoff. Thank you for your work on Piknik. User:AngusWOOF, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

moved this to picnic, since it is an alternative spelling

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|AngusWOOF}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 21:55, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:XMASTREE" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wikipedia:XMASTREE has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 22 § Wikipedia:XMASTREE until a consensus is reached. Vitaium (talk) 13:06, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Russian Navy

I need help to get around with WP:MOS in the Russian Navy article that precedes WP:BOLD edit, based on proposal by Buckshot06. Aside from that, this page is currently protected under contentious topic restriction per WP:GS/RUSUKR, for making these attempts at three times.

• Special:Permalink/1166039688
• Special:Permalink/1165971746
• Special:Permalink/1166167741

2001:4451:824F:B700:541B:9433:F4CB:52ED (talk) 14:59, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm currently almost on a wikibreak, and I'd rather not edit pages with contentious topics and a history of edit warring. Sorry again. — Mike Novikoff 16:15, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

This user made a request to me, and appears to be avoiding the article talkpage and engaging with the other principal involved user. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:10, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Numorous

There's always got to be someone tsk-tsking, doesn't there? EEng 03:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't be tasked, if only there were no tumorous around. — Mike Novikoff 03:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

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) 00:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)