User talk:Nagualdesign/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Signatures

I'm not 184.145.50.201, but as it happens I have more or less the same opinion about "special" signatures.

Some people have "normal" signatures. Some people have arbitrarily fancy ones. I presume that people put time and effort into designing special signatures because they feel it gives them some individuality, and perhaps because it lets them show off their design or coding skills. And clearly a lot of people feel this way, because someone put the features into the MediaWiki software to support special signatures at all, and lots of people make use of them.

For me, the fact that no one else on Wikipedia has the username "scs" is quite enough individuality for me. So I don't feel any need to distinguish myself further with a special signature.

Furthermore, for me, the more unique and different and eye-catching a signature is, the more distracting it is. I'm reading along, and my visual system and the rest of my brain are doing all the things they normally do when they read and process text, and then this big weird thing pops into view and bops me over the head.

Imagine you have a friend who happens to be a circus clown. You're trying to have a serious discussion with him about politics, and he's making a detailed and nuanced argument, only he's still wearing his clown costume, and every 10 seconds a whistle blows and a wheel on his hat spins and tiny fireworks shoot out. You might rather concentrate on his words, without being continually distracted by his hat.

I presume (and these are guesses; I intend no insult if they're wrong) that by designing your own special signature you intended to project one or more of these messages:

• I am a unique individual
• I have good graphic design skills
• I care enough about my presence on Wikipedia to have taken the time to learn how to create a special signature, rather than passively settling for a generic default.

However, I can tell you that when I come across a special signature (of anyone's; I am not trying to pick on you here) I don't get any of those messages. These are the messages I get:

• you want me to PAY ATTENTION TO YOU
• you have too much time on your hands
• you are showing off your use of a new MediaWiki formatting trick that no one else has thought of using in a signature
• you imagine that a special signature is one mark of a "real" Wikipedia editor

So I believe that a special signature for a Wikipedia editor, just like an advertisement for a company, does not always convey the 100% positive message that its author might imagine. It may be viewed positively by some (hopefully a majority) of readers, but it will be viewed negatively by some number of others.

One more point and then I'm done. I gather that at some point in the discussion on RD/S, user 184.145.50.201 accidentally damaged the discussion thread, and was accused by User:DMacks of violating WP:POINT. To me (and this is only my opinion), every special signature is also a microscopic violation of this guideline. To me, special signatures disrupt my reading in order to make the point that their owners want to be seen as special. But to me, really, you don't need to make that point: I already believe that we are all special.

Anyway, that's what I think, and I suspect that user 184.145.50.201 feels somewhat the same. Normally I don't broadcast these opinions around unsolicited; I'm not trying to tell you that your fancy signature is wrong or bad or that you should stop using it. But in any communication exercise, it's useful to know what your listener is hearing, and now you know what I am. —Steve Summit (talk) 12:56, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@Scs: Thanks for taking the time to explain. I'll try to address the points you've made but if I miss anything important feel free to ask again. First of all, your imagined reasons behind why I have a custom signature are incorrect (and contrary to WP:AGF). My primary reason for having a custom signature is to make it easier for me to find my own posts quickly, particularly when scrolling down a very long talk page. It also makes it easier for other people to identify my username, and to easily recognize my posts (if they've seen me on one page they will probably recognize me if they see me on a different page, for example). That's all. It has nothing to do with asserting my individuality (all usernames are unique) nor to do with showing off my design or coding skills (signature mark-up is pretty trivial compared to, say, this), and you'd be ill-advised to assume that "clearly a lot of people feel this way", since everyone with a custom signature will no doubt have their own reasons.

When you say that "this big weird thing pops into view and bops me over the head", what is it exactly that you mean? My signature isn't particularly big: nagualdesign is actually smaller than Steve Summit (talk). And your analogy about it being like talking to a clown about politics, and every 10 seconds a whistle blows and a wheel on his hat spins and tiny fireworks shoot out, is frankly a bit ludicrous. Perhaps you could say something concrete about my actual signature instead?

Onto your bullet points, I think I've already addressed the first two, though I will add that in the 12 years I've been contributing to Wikipedia I've probably spent less than an hour on my signature. The third bullet point, I care enough about my presence on Wikipedia to have taken the time to learn how to create a special signature, rather than passively settling for a generic default, isn't right either. As a self-employed website designer, learning how to do a bit of simple Wiki mark-up can be very easy (in this case it was) or it can be difficult, in which case it's always time well spent as I learn something in the process (another string to my bow, as it were). Essentially, I just enjoy coding, and it has nothing to do with fussing over how people may perceive me.

Your next set of bullet points, about how you perceive people's custom signatures, are a bit silly in my opinion, and again a little lacking in WP:AGF. I hope you don't go through life making those kind of assumptions whenever you don't 'get' something! As I like to say, some people like listening to country music (my mother, for example). Just because we have our own tastes, it doesn't mean that other people must be [insert pejorative here].

Finally, your point about custom signatures being a "microscopic violation" of WP:POINT, as they disrupt your reading "in order to make the point that their owners want to be seen as special", has got nothing at all to do with that guideline (or reality, as far as I'm concerned).

Imagine if someone, let's say a circus clown with an elaborate hat, told you that it was a bit annoying that your signature was a nickname because they had to double check what your actual username was. However, instead of mentioning that they had to double check what your actual username was, they went on at great length about how you obviously think you're special, or you want to project that you're special, or that you do it because you want people to PAY ATTENTION TO YOU, or that you have too much time on your hands, yaddah yaddah yaddah... I think you'll agree that it would be much simpler if they'd simply written, "I tried pinging @Steve Summit: before I realized you were User:scs, and I had to re-edit my post", and kept all the baseless assumptions to themselves. After all, there's nothing wrong with wanting to use whatever name you wish.

Well, it's been fun chatting. Stop by again any time. All the best, nagualdesign 01:32, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

...I should have added that after reading your post I read WP:SIG in its entirety, including the section on Overriding custom signatures. Basically, if you find other users' custom signatures distracting there is a solution: User:Kephir/gadgets/unclutter. I hope that helps. nagualdesign 01:53, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Wow! First, thanks for the long and thoughtful reply. Totally unnecessary, as it happens — I was so not trying to start a debate, or put you on the defensive about anything — but appreciated all the same.

In the 4-camera thread at RD/S, you and a few other users seemed surprised that anyone could criticize a sig like yours at all. I probably misunderstood, but your entreaty "feel free to leave a post on my talk page" seemed to welcome an explanation of how anyone could find it objectionable. And that was the motivation for my post here: to give you a window into that mysterious other side, just as you entreated me to, by analogy, be more tolerant of someone who likes country music even if I don't.

My analogy of the clown with the hat seems to have totally misfired. Let's try a different one. Imagine for a moment that I have a bizarre form of synesthesia: every time I see words in an italic font, my brain perceives it as a loud siren going off. Imagine that you and I are in regular written communication, but are having strange difficulties. Eventually I explain my condition. At first this is strange to you: italics are a perfectly ordinary typographical convention, used by virtually all authors who have the flexibility to use them at all. You've never heard of anyone with my reaction, and you have a hard time imagining that it works that way for me at all. You are initially defensive: I seem to be telling I want you to not use italics in your writing, which you are of course reluctant to do, because 99.99% of your readers have no problem with italics, and using them in your writing provides a useful distinction.

Or, to go back to the clown, imagine that he wasn't a circus clown who forgot he was still in costume: imagine he's an ordinary Joe, with an astonishingly strange taste in haberdashery, who imagines that his individual choice of hat is just another on the spectrum from beret to slouch cap to bowler to derby to top hat. He sees everyone else making a personal choice in what kind of hat to wear, he imagines he's simply made his own choice, and he doesn't understand why people have a hard time maintaining a conversation with him.

Now, of course, on Wikipedia, the choice to use a "fancy" sig is not (usually) as bizarre or distracting as someone wearing a noisy clown hat in everyday settings, and of course my own personal reaction to a "fancy" sig is not actually as extreme as the synesthesia scenario I described. Both of those analogies were exaggerated, in a clumsy attempt to make a point. But, although I may be in the minority, I don't think I'm alone when I say that my own, personal, private opinion is that "fancy" signatures are an unnecessary distraction. I'm neither trying to tell you that you have to agree with me or to get rid of your signature, but I am telling you that it's my opinion and I feel entitled to it. And, yes, of course I usually don't make a big deal out of it, I usually just ignore them, just as I ignore noisy sirens when they're on emergency vehicles in the street and I'm a pedestrian on the sidewalk.

But! Use your fancy signature in good health — it's not actually bad-looking at all, as fancy signatures go :-) — and I promise I will stash this little tempest away in a secure teapot, and not complain to you about your signature ever again. —Steve Summit (talk) 04:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

P.S. I didn't address your point about the distinction between my own username and the name in my signature, but you're absolutely right, that is at least logically if not completely analogous.

P.P.S. Thanks for the tip about Kephir's unclutter gadget.

You're more than welcome to post on my talk page. That was indeed an open invitation that applies to all and sundry. And I'm sorry if I came across as defensive. I'm not annoyed in the slightest, I was just refuting the thought processes that you ascribed to me. Honestly, I'm still scratching my head wondering what it is about my signature that you find so distracting.

Since you seem to like analogies think of it like this: Imagine someone tells you, "I don't like the colour of your car." Then, instead of saying anything about the colour or the car or what it is they don't like, they talk about what sort of person you probably are, what they think motivates you in life, what they think about people with fancy cars, how it affects them when they look at cars in general, etc. You'd be left none the wiser as to why they don't like the colour of your car. Whereas if they'd said, "It's yellow. I'm not a fan of yellow cars." at least that would be something. If your aim here was to enlighten me as to why some people might not like my signature, perhaps you could say something about why you don't like my signature? What is it that you don't like? I'm not incredulous - beauty is in the eye of the beholder - I'm just struggling to work out what you're trying to say. The only word you've used so far that actually relates to my signature is "big", but apart from where the l, d and the dot on top of the i stick up above the cap line it isn't particularly big. Is it the fact that the x-height is larger that normal (lowercase letters that are as tall as capital letters)? The fact that it's bold face..? nagualdesign 06:52, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Two words I used repeatedly — not sure how you missed them :-) — were "special" and "fancy".

So a perfectly valid statement would be, "It's special. I'm not a fan of special signatures."

If you want me to be explicit, the specific problems with your signature are:

• It is not in the default (running) font.
• It is not in the default size.
• It is not in the default weight.
• It is not in the default color.
• It is in two different colors.

In other words, your signature is not "nagualdesign". In other words, everything you like about it -- the fact that it jumps off the page and makes it easy for you to see -- is what I dislike about it.

As I said, you're hardly alone in this. Large numbers of editors on Wikipedia have signatures that are not in the default font, size, weight, and/or color. I don't like any of them; they're all distracting. If I ran Wikipedia the technical feature that permits these variations would never have been implemented in the first place. But it's monumentally unfair of me to be singling you out in this discussion, because there's nothing wrong (in my eyes) with your signature that isn't wrong with hundreds of others.

It's actually kind of a fascinating impasse we're at. You seem to find my opinion astonishing, and I'm astonished that you find it so astonishing. I don't know whether your disagreement is with my opinion, or with the fact that I chose to express it rather than keep it to myself.

Clearly I made a mistake along the way. I thought you didn't know how someone could object to your signature, I thought I would tell you, I thought you would say, "Okay, I didn't realize that, thanks for letting me know." But instead we've gotten into this terribly long, overwrought discussion, and I seem to have given you the impression that I'm a contentious, AGF-violating bastard who tries to force his inappropriate opinions on others, and with improper characterizations thrown in, to boot.

So: Peace. I've already broken my promise not to complain to you about your signature ever again, and I don't want to do that again. I will continue to try to ignore your and everybody else's distracting signatures, and you can ignore the fact that I find them so. Take care. —Steve Summit (talk) 11:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I see. So there's nothing specific about my signature that you dislike, you just find custom signatures distracting because they're custom signatures. That's fair enough, I suppose. I'm not sure if that's what 184.145.50.201 meant though, since many of the editors who contribute to WP:RD/S use custom signatures and AFAIK mine was the only one they found distracting.

For what it's worth, I do not consider you a "contentious, AGF-violating bastard". I respect people who speak their mind, and I'm thankful. And I hope that you understand why I found your assumptions a little mean-spirited. Not everyone who uses a custom signature is an attention-seeking egotist! To paraphrase Martin Luther King, I look to a day when editors will not be judged by the colour of their signature, but by the content of their posts. nagualdesign 19:37, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes! I don't like custom signatures! By George, I think (s)he's got it! ☺ Sorry for the tl;dr path it took to get here.

And yes, I do understand your assumptions about my "assumptions", so we're all good there, too. "Fair enough" all around, I suppose. Thanks.

Ironically, to your rerouted point about the clown, my signature, and my username (a point which to be honest I had never considered in all these years, until you brought it up), by a complete coincidence today, having nothing to do with our discussion here, I came across a giant debate from a couple of weeks ago, sprawling across AN/I and Wikipedia talk:Signatures and who knows where else, frenetically debating the possibility of imposing draconian new sanctions against ne'er-do-wells with that sort of mismatch. So I'm fixing that: —scs (talk) 04:51, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I've just read through the entire discussion at Wikipedia talk:Signatures#RfC: usernames in signatures and found it simultaneously laughable and highly irritating. If I were you I'd keep your custom signature as-is. After all, your 'nickname' is (I assume) your actual given name, and a pointless rule that stops you using your given name because a bunch of clowns with silly hats assume that new users can't work out how to ping you is something to be opposed. As you said, it's draconian. Thanks for bringing the RfC to my attention. I'm going voice my opinion there shortly. nagualdesign 20:18, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Search for my !vote in the first proposal. There's some important context there that's been mostly overlooked in that discussion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:47, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd seen your post but hadn't followed the link before casting my own !votes. I just went back and read it now (incidentally, it was easy to find your post again thanks to your custom signature) and I'm surprised that this hasn't received more attention. At the risk of falling foul of WP:CANVASSING I've appended the link to one of my comments there. nagualdesign 21:31, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS is why I hadn't mentioned the discussion before now. I'm fairly certain that anyone that wants to accuse me of canvassing you to come participate will be facing a flying wall of fish once the fact that I'm not the OP of this section, nor did I even mention the RfC until after you did becomes clear.

Oh, BTW, I showed that youtube link to my wife and she's resumed pestering me to build a campervan for us to live in (it stopped about 2 years ago when she came to a realization that we need a bigger home, not a smaller one on her own). I keep reminding her that we have kids, but she seems determined.

I sense an RV lifestyle in my retirement. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:44, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd actually cast my !votes before you mentioned the RfC. Adding that link to one of my comments probably isn't an issue. As to the campervan idea, I was working on one until a few years ago when I had to scrap my van. My spare bedroom is now full of campervan parts waiting to be installed. Like Foresty Forest, it was only ever intended for me and my mountain bike, so I could visit places that I'd photograph. It's also a nice place to spend the night... in close company. Probably not great if you've got a couple of sproggs knocking about. nagualdesign 22:31, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

• I'll say that the only message I ever got from a custom signature was "I'd like to be able to easily spot my signature on these long discussion pages." And, as it so happens, I too, enjoy easily spotting my signature on long discussion pages. It's also nice to be able to recognize other editors by their signatures, at a glance.

I love the editnotice, by the way. A masterful shot of a beautiful view. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

P.S. I'm stealing your banner. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

That's Pendle Hill, a local landmark. I have some fantastic photos of it that are way too good for Wikimedia Commons, made from multiple (sometimes a dozen or more) photographs stitched together. There's one on my mother's wall, taken in pink light at the crack of dawn after a heavy snowfall. It's nearly 6ft wide but still 300 dots per inch, and you can look at it through binoculars and see endless detail.

Which banner? The one about being semi-retarded? I was {{Retired}} for about a year, then changed it to {{Semi-retired}} when I came back. I think the current banner is probably more accurate. You're welcome to use it, although you're definitely more mentally active on Wikipedia these days than a lot of editors. I don't know where you find the energy. nagualdesign 06:52, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

That's the one. It now adorns my user page with pride.

I would love to see that large photo if you ever change your mind about sharing it with WP. I've always had a passion for ultra-high-resolution photography.

As for the energy, I'll share my secret: I have two young kids who endeavor to accidentally kill themselves in creative and unexpected ways every time I take them camping, shooting or even to the local park.

For extra fun, the older one is a pre-teen who is (perhaps predictably, given his parentage) somewhat immature for his age and thus still prone to stupid thrill seeking, so he manages to do all this with affected jadedness and a healthy dose of sarcasm.

So truth be told, it's not really energy, per-se. It's just a raw mix of paternal instinct and well-justified paranoia. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, I see all the effort you put into defending Wikipedia from the scourge of Nazism and anti-Semitism. I spend a lot of time lurking without commenting. All power to you.

If you have emails enabled I'll send you a copy of that photo. Please keep it to yourself. I have a large-format printer and my plan is to sell my best photos online. I've got almost everything I need to produce huge panoramas up to 2ft by 26ft, although I'll probably never produce anything wider than 8~10ft. nagualdesign 19:37, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Nagualdesign, I do have email enabled, and I'd love to see it. I promise to never show it to anyone, though I reserve the right to use it (but only as a reference) for the background in some digital painting of mine. My younger son is quite fond of giant monsters, and as a result, I've been making him paintings of them. I'm currently working on Sirenhead for him.

I got your email. I'm going to wait until I get home to look at it, as my work monitors are a paltry trio of 1080p non-color-corrected cheap acers, and one of them is turned vertically, whereas at home, I can pipe my display into a 60" UHD television and pretend like I'm really there. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:59, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Be sure to wear a coat and gloves. The colours are nice and warm but it was a very cold morning. nagualdesign 21:07, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm a Florida boy, born and bred, but you wanna know where I bought some land to build a vacation cabin? North of Ruby Ridge, in the Rocky Mountains, just south of the Canadian border. And we managed to get a lot that was on a nice ridge, with a great view. This isn't actually the view from the spot I'm building the cabin in, but it's pretty damn similar.

Me likey cold weather. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:26, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Ooh, nice! You might enjoy this YouTube channel: Foresty Forest nagualdesign 21:58, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

June corner

some impressions of places, flowers and music for you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:31, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks re: subspecies

Just to thank you for "butting in" to defend me. You are absolutely right that their accusations and language were inappropriate ("random speculation based on a thimbles-full of actual scientific understanding", "parroted claptrap", etc.!). Amusingly, their criticisms about not using the reference desk for its intended purpose and not citing references applied much more to their own behaviour than mine! There is lots more I could criticise also about the scientific claims, but it isn't the right venue, anybody reading what is there now can form their own opinion, and I fear that we are not going to change this person's attitudes or behaviour. But good that you called them out, since others may take note. Jmchutchinson (talk) 22:42, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome, John. I was a bit taken aback by their first rant, which seemed to inadvertently take you as some sort of white supremacist, but their second rant after your measured response was inexcusable IMO and totally hypocritical. I think they were just having a bad day (or two) and hope they're willing to take the time to reflect. nagualdesign 23:30, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

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) 00:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Elizabeth II Restoration

The talk page has been protected as well so I can't reply there, but I wanted to thank you for doing the retouch of the uncropped image. I considered doing it myself but I'm rather more the amateur, and thought it was better to add the pre-restored image as opposed to a poorly restored one, and then wait for someone else to do that job if they wanted to. You did brilliantly! 90.198.253.144 (talk) 08:58, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Much appreciated. It's a shame that you can't edit the page. Presumably it's because you're not logged in. Perhaps you could sign up for an account if you haven't already, and you'd be able to cast your vote. nagualdesign 11:38, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Brooke Adams lead image

Hello, if you're still editing, would you consider retouching the lead image I added to Brooke Adams (actress)? I'm concerned that her nipples are showing through. You're welcome to crop it differently from the image I extracted it from. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:20, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Kolya. Nice to hear from you. I'm off work on Tuesday so I'll see what I can do then. I've never been asked to make an image less nipply! nagualdesign 23:51, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done I've updated the group photo and replaced both of the cropped images. nagualdesign 20:38, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

September music

September songs

Thank you for your image improvements! - The rose pic was taken on 11 Sep 2021, and this year was full of music that day, Tag des offenen Denkmals, not only singing in church and rehearsals for Verdi's Requiem, but two concerts at special places pictured, one a synagogue (pictured on its wall). Today three DYK: a piece we'll perform on Sunday, a violinist we heard in June playing the Berg Concerto (my brother played in the orchestra), and a Youth Orchestra shaped by a conductor who recently died. Almost too much of a good thing. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:37, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Cardiacs images

Hi! I saw your Queen Elizabeth restoration and am impressed by your credentials, so as you seem to be taking requests I'd be really grateful if you could edit out the fold lines from these images: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] and try toning down the overexposure, as well as any improvements you see fit. I tried doing it myself but didn't get very far. I also edited this image together using two other images of the band (of which a cropped version is used as the lead image on the Cardiacs page), but I don't think I'm the best person for the job, so if you could improve it in any way or redo it better please feel free to do so if you get the chance. Commons Category Miklogfeather (talk) 17:25, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Sorry Miklogfeather, but there's very little to work with in these images. The blown out highlights cannot be recovered. I tried redoing the montage but the results were no better than what you've done. nagualdesign 19:39, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh well, thanks so much for trying! Keep up the good work. Miklogfeather (talk) 21:42, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Human lead image

Hey Nagual, I was curious if you think any improvements can be made to the Human lead image. It's become an iconic Wikipedia image after all these years, but it's never been touched up. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:51, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

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) 00:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:52, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Coleman logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Coleman 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) 17:09, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

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) 00:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Hey, you snuck back!

I'm glad to see you've done a little editing, now and then, over the past months. Can you make it more regular? Please? EEng 06:01, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Iași Airport logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Iași Airport 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) 17:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)