User talk:Ninetoyadome

Welcome!

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

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

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Quis separabit? 02:38, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Pointy AFD nomination of Western Azerbaijan regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Western Azerbaijan. Thank you. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 08:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5 million Armenians in Russia?

...the IP may be right in this case. How can 5,000,000 Armenians be living in Russia? That seem grossly exagerrated. As for the other stats, I agree with you, we need a WP:RS for stats and information. 13.6 million Armenians seems a bit farfetched and the fact that there's no source makes it even more dubious. Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:49, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute on Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity)

Hi Ninetoyadome,

I'm inviting you to discuss a dispute I had with an IP user on Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity). If you look at the bottom of its talk page (sections "Edit Warring on Dates and Van as capital" and "Protected edit request on 10 May 2014"), you will see a discussion. You can decide which side to choose (I am not inviting you to choose my side), but I would like the issue to be resolved. I have stated my arguments there and the IP has not responded to any of them. It led to an edit war, after which I requested a semi-protection to protect the article from being edited by IPs, but an administrator placed a full-protection instead and the IP's edits remain. The administrators are not familiar with the story of the Kingdom, and in an understandable attempt to be neutral, have not accepted my request to undo the IP's edits. Of course, I believe I am right, but if you believe the IP was correct, please mention it in the Talk page so that we can rewrite the article accordingly (as it stands, the article is inconsistent because it treats the Satrapy of Armenia as a separate state, yet the infobox dates include it in its timeframe). Thank you. Kentronhayastan (talk) 20:59, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not surprised. The user has several sockpuppets (probably due to a dynamic IP). If you agree that this should be fixed and have the time, you can visit this page [1] and state your agreement and also make a mention on the Talk page of the article. Thank you. Kentronhayastan (talk) 23:45, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity) page no longer has protection, and the IP is back, now referring to my edit as "vandalism" and referring to his version as the "stable version left by admin." I think I will need assistance with this one. If you have time, it would be appreciated. Thanks. Kentronhayastan (talk) 23:47, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The page was semi-protected for 3 weeks, so the IP can't revert for now. Thanks a lot for your support. Let me know if you have issues as well. Kentronhayastan (talk) 16:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gegharkunik Province

Please don't revert Gegharkunik Province, Kapan or other articles as it is poorly cited per Wikipedia:Cleanup. You can improve article, by adding relavant references.--Janavar (talk) 20:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic

Sorry for marking the link as dead. It gave me a 404 error when I clicked on it the first time. I tried it just now and it worked. Thank you for catching my mistake. -- Kndimov (talk) 21:40, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That may have been the case. But thanks for checking afterwards to catch that. :) -- Kndimov (talk) 22:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Khojaly Massacre

Please, don't flood external news in Khojaly Massacre article. If you think, the point is relevant, feel free to edit Akrim Aylisli page and write there anything u want.--Yacatisma (talk) 14:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Atropatene

I missed this - you reverted twice on this in May, breaking your one revert per week per article. I won't block now but you must not do this again. Dougweller (talk) 16:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 8 August

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the 2014 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:31, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Topkhana forest

Hi, would you be willing to withdraw the AfD for the Topkhana forest (Nagorno-Karabakh) article? I have made a lot of edits to it and I think most of the problems with it are now gone. The only big remaining issue might be the article title, but that is not an AfD thing. You have not fully initiated the AfD anyway, it does not appear on the Articles for Deletion page yet. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:00, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:44, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your post to my talk page

I've given him a 3RR warning. You are at 3RR also. Why not start a discussion on the talk page? Dougweller (talk) 21:40, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian Highlands

Hello, I'd like to know why you reverted my edit to Armenian Highlands? The article stated (and you have returned it to stating) that Mount Ararat is in Ararat Province, Armenia, but it is, according to the page on Mount Ararat, in Argi Province, Turkey. I'm not going to rerevert it right know because I don't want an edit war, but the edit I made was clearly correct. What is your response to this? Liam987 (talk) 03:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was not talking about the province, it was in a table of the highest peaks in the Armenian Highlands. It said 'Mount Ararat' under 'Mountain', and then '

Ararat Province' under 'Location'. Liam987 (talk) 03:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

President of Armenia

Hello. I would like to know why you keep reverting my edits to President of Armenia article? I have listed all the sources and have made correct references. The information is valid and has been approved by the office of the President of Armenia. There is NO copy-past there, except for the hystory of the Presidential Palace, which is taken from the official website of the President of RA and has been referenced too. Could you please stop reverting it and/or tell me which parts, in your opinion, need change? --Iren Vincent (talk) 11:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You had the discussion with User:Yerevantsi. Wikipedia does not allow copyrighted material to be added. You cannot copy paste as it will be removed. Ninetoyadome (talk) 17:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Atropatene

The discussion has been over for a week. The user has been topic banned and the rest of the participants of the discussion seem to agree that the template does belong in the article. If you indeed care about the article and not about removing references to Azerbaijan, then you should have at least left a word on the talkpage. You only did so after you were warned of being reported. Until then, your contribution to the article consisted of nothing but reverts, and that is considered edit warring. Parishan (talk) 20:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding video

Please provide your opinion. The discussion is here. --92slim (talk) 22:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

Hello,

Please be aware of this report. Parishan (talk) 01:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

To enforce an arbitration decision you have been blocked from editing for a period of one ~~week~~ month. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. Zad68 20:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted a procedure instructing administrators as follows: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

This block is a discretionary sanction, as authorised by the Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 case. The proximate cause is edit-warring, and specifically, violation of the 1RR at Caucasian Albania, with 2 reverts in just under 24 hours. Please review all the comments at the WP:AE discussion here. Zad68 20:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked increased to one month per discovery of previously-applied sanction of 1 revert per week, which you have violated several times. Zad68 04:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zad68 I accept my block as i violated the rules. Can you let User:EdJohnston know, regarding the Caucasian_Albania article, that i support not putting either History of Armenia or History of Azerbaijan to the article. The only reason i added Armenia was because Parishan was so persistent in adding Azerbaijan when Armenia has more to do with Caucasian Albania then Azerbaijan. Parishan has been pushing his POV on different articles from Atropatene to Lake Sevan. Thank You. Ninetoyadome (talk) 05:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I were POV pushing on Atropatene, as you say, how come you acknowledged that an agreement had been reached on the talkpage over my supposedly "POV version"? Not to mention that you made many more reverts of that article than left comments on its talkpage. As for Lake Sevan, you did not even participate in the discussion, but just out of curiosity: what input of mine qualifies as "POV pushing" and why? I had cited at least five sources. Parishan (talk) 00:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Sevan i agreed Gotche should be added, then you go and add from "the modern era to the first half of the twentieth century". It sounds wrong and i said it should be changed in the talk page. I still believe Atropatene should not be added but only consented because more people were for adding than against. Topkhana Forest is a fictional forest, as shown by the sources posted by Tiptoethrutheminefield but you call them unsourced statements and remove them. Ninetoyadome (talk) 01:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it "sound wrong", if there are sources dating from 1506 and up until the first decades of the Soviet era that use the toponym Gokcha which is even present in the Latin names of the endemic fish that are found there? The toponym was around for over 400 years at the very least, and its existence is supported by third-party sources published in at least four different countries. I struggle to understand why you would qualify its inclusion as "POV". As for Topkhana, none of the sources shown by Tiptoethrutheminefield mentioned it as a "fictional forest". I find it funny that you are accusing me of POV and at the same time, advocating screamingly unencyclopaedic and biased wording such as "fictional", which, on top of other things, is not used by anyone except Tiptoethrutheminefield and yourself. Parishan (talk) 02:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The way i had said in the talk page was why not put "From X - X date it was known as Gokcha". Like Tiptoethrutheminefield had stated the wording was off and needed changing. You posted a random website and claim it states it as a state reserve, which it doesnt and ignore what third party sources state. To be honest say what you will, it doesnt matter to me anymore. Ninetoyadome (talk) 03:05, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"From X to X date" would not work because the fact that the toponym appears in a 1506 source does not mean that it was the first time Gokcha was ever used in a written source. The source certainly does not suggest that. It is just the earliest document that my Google search skills allowed me to access, but there may very well be earlier sources. "A random website" is the website of the executive power of the region where the forest is located, and the third-party sources do not deny that the area has been declared a state reserve in Azerbaijan. Parishan (talk) 04:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Vandal

Re your message: As you may have noticed, I filled out a new SPI report regarding this vandal. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Medes

All the IPs are from the Fars Province University Of Medical Science And Health Care Services. Probably the same person. Too sporadic to do anything. Doug Weller (talk) 12:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting a comment

Hello Ninetoyadome,

I noticed we often have the same article/subject interest, and the same stance on numerous articles (at least when I see on my whatchlist what you revert), and because of that, I would like to ask whether you could leave a comment here. It's regarding the same issues you had yourself at articles such as Baku khanate quite recently, and such.

Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 21:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, @Ninetoyadome:, sorry for this one. I made that edit, as I thought I was logged in. You were rightful to revert it as I didn't even leave an edit summary. Do you have any complaints about it, or do you agree with that I can re-insert it? 'Northwestern Greater Iran" is not an academic termination, and back then only what is modern-day northwestern Iran was called "Azerbaijan", while the intimately intertwined region to the north of it was called Arran/Shirvan, as you know. Though perhaps just leaving it at "greater iran", will less the amount of nationalists from "both sides". Let me know, if you have any further remarks about it. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 00:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The region was part of Greater Iran and that is why i reverted, but if you want to change it I have no objection because as you said 'Northwestern Greater Iran' is not correct.Ninetoyadome (talk)

Aight, thats good to hear! Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 01:29, 6 November 2015 (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) 13:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

re

He's toast. --Golbez (talk) 02:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Duduk

Just because you have a vendetta for Armenians/Armenia, that doesn't give you the right to edit articles incorrectly to make them more "Turkish" related. The tsiranapogh is an undisputed ancient Armenian instrument. It's recognized by UNSCO. If you keep reverting I will file warnings, then request moderation.

Not sure why you deleted this, but I brought it back. Please, let's discuss the changes. Let me know why a world-recognized Armenian instrument should not have the proper Armenian name used.

HyeSK (talk) 22:18, 16 June 2016 (UTC)HyeSK — Preceding unsigned comment added by HyeSK (talk • contribs) 12:01, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LMAO!

What an amazing troll.[2] - LouisAragon (talk) 02:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 6 September 2016

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

News and notes: AffCom still grappling with WMF Board's criteria for new chapters

Special report: Olympics readership depended on language

In the media: Librarians, Wikipedians, and a library of Wikipedia coverage

WikiProject report: Watching Wikipedia

Featured content: Entertainment, sport, and something else in-between

Traffic report: From Phelps to Bolt to Reddit

Technology report: Wikimedia mobile sites now don't load images if the user doesn't see them

Recent research: One study encounters critique of its ethics from Wikipedians; another critiques the ethics employed by Wikipedia

Blog: Upload of free photos from Swiss library underway

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 16:54, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Treaty of Kurakchay

Ever seen this "article"? I did some brief research, with help from Doug Weller, and it seems as if the entire article is in fact a hoax. There was never such a thing as a "Kurakchay Treaty", and only some Azerbaijan state-published websites and books make mention of it. I recently got my hand on all other titles used in the article, at least those who are RS (Mostashari, Bournoutian) and neither do they make any mention of a specific treaty with such a name. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:41, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus. It's not surprising since they have invented books to help push their agenda previously. Should the article be deleted? Ninetoyadome (talk) 00:23, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I will AfD it in the near future. A recognition of Russian authority (e.g. Timothy C. Dowling, 2014; Mikaberidze, 2011) of Russian power was in fact performed by the khan/governor of the Karabakh Khanate, but the whole concept of a "Kurakhchay Treaty", e.g. something very "formalized" and "definite" (such as the Treaty of San Stefano, for example), or even a "treaty" in the strictest of the word, is something that pov-pushers with aid from non-RS sources have turned it into, and was never made. Some people really... - LouisAragon (talk) 00:43, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in this. Feel free to leave a comment. - LouisAragon (talk) 00:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

JeanJauresJrÉtienne Dolet (talk) 06:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 2016

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ismail I. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. MPS1992 (talk) 19:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Ninetoyadome. 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]

Mubariz Ibrahimov page vandalism

Hello, You left a message on my talk page where you seemed frustrated about something, I did indeed undo your revert because what you had done was remove sourced content without discussion. This is considered vandalism. I suggest you read this Wikipedia:Vandalism before making any more edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aghburik (talk • contribs) 12:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm keeping an eye on it. I like your latest edit. --Golbez (talk) 17:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought of letting you know

Noticed alot of incorrect stuff and hoaxes in this article. Rewrote the most important parts and added proper sources written by historians.[3] Anyhow, I believe the same incorrect material had been copy-pasted into other articles as well, so we should keep an eye out. Just thought of giving you a heads up, as you often deal with similar things. All the best, - LouisAragon (talk) 16:57, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just adjusted the Western Azerbaijan (political concept) article as well. Please lemme know if you think I made the fairy tale (self explanatory) look "too serious", if you get what I mean. Its quite a shame such incredible nonsense is even allowed to exist on Wiki, but I guess the least thing we could do is correcting the "historic matters" proclaimed in such articles with proper sources, written by historians. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:11, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Ninetoyadome. 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]

Might be of use

Given your area of conduct, I thought you might be interested in this material from Bournoutian's new book. Sorry in advance if you think I cluttered your talk page!

Bournoutian, George A. (2016). The 1820 Russian Survey of the Khanate of Shirvan: A Primary Source on the Demography and Economy of an Iranian Province prior to its Annexation by Russia. Gibb Memorial Trust.;

p. xvi

"As noted, in order to construct an Azerbaijani national history and identity based on the territorial definition of a nation, as well as to reduce the influence of Islam and Iran, the Azeri nationalists, prompted by Moscow devised an "Azeri" alphabet, which replaced the Arabo-Persian script. In the 1930s a number of Soviet historians, including the prominent Russian Orientalist, Ilya Petrushevskii, were instructed by the Kremlin to accept the totally unsubstantiated notion that the territory of the former Iranian khanates (except Yerevan, which had become Soviet Armenia) was part of an Azerbaijani nation. Petrushevskii's two important studies dealing with the South Caucasus, therefore, use the term Azerbaijan and Azerbaijani in his works on the history of the region from the sixteenth to the nineteenth centuries. Other Russian academics went even further and claimed that an Azeri nation had existed from ancient times and had continued to the present. Since all the Russian surveys and almost all nineteenth-century Russian primary sources referred to the Muslims who resided in the South Caucasus as "Tatars" and not "Azerbaijanis", Soviet historians simply substituted Azerbaijani for Tatars. Azeri historians and writers, starting in 1937, followed suit and began to view the three-thousand-year history of the region as that of Azerbaijan. The pre-Iranian, Iranian, and Arab eras were expunged. Anyone who lived in the territory of Soviet Azerbaijan was classified as Azeri; hence the great Iranian poet Nezami, who had written only in Persian, became the national poet of Azerbaijan.

p. xvii;

"Although after Stalin's death arguments rose between Azerbaijani historians and Soviet Iranologists dealing with the history of the region in ancient times (specifically the era of the Medes), no Soviet historian dared to question the use of the term Azerbaijan or Azerbaijani in modern times. As late as 1991, the Institute of History of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, published a book by an Azeri historian, in which it noy only equated the "Tatars" with the present-day Azeris, but the author, discussing the population numbers in 1842, also included Nakhichevan and Ordubad in "Azerbaijan". The author, just like Petrushevskii, totally ignored the fact that between 1828 and 1921, Nakhichivan and Ordubad were first part of the Armenian Province and then part of the Yerevan guberniia and had only become part of Soviet Azerbaijan, some eight decades later."

p. xv;

"Although the overwhelming number of nineteenth-century Russian and Iranian, as well as present-day European historians view the Iranian province of Azarbayjan and the present-day Republic of Azerbaijan as two separate geographical and political entities, modern Azeri historians and geographers view it as a single state that has been separated into "northern" and "southern" sectors and which will be united in the future."

p. xviii;

"Since the collapse of the Soviet Union the current Azeri historians have not only continued to use the terms "northern" and "southern" Azerbaijan, but also assert that the present-day Armenian Republic was a part of northern Azerbaijan. In their fury over what they view as the "Armenian occupation" of Nagorno-Karabakh [which incidentally was an autonomous Armenian region within Soviet Azerbaijan], Azeri politicians and historians deny any historic Armenian presence in the South Caucasus and add that all Armenian architectural monuments located in the present-day Republic of Azerbaijan are not Armenian but [Caucasian] Albanian."

- LouisAragon (talk) 19:26, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Ninetoyadome. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (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) 00:11, 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) 01:41, 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) 00:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]