User talk:Nouill

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Nouill! I am Marek69 and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. Thank you for your contributions. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Marek.69 ^talk 17:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Tea Party movement. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.--M4gnum0n (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Category:Wikipedia administration: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you.--M4gnum0n (talk) 11:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a French contributor, fr:Utilisateur:Nouill, my English isn't good... then I have difficulty and I was hesitating to explain my contribution in Edit summary box, in few word. Moreover, my edition in Category:Wikipedia administration, it just a revert, then...

There is no problem with your edit there. I just left a friendly notice to let you know that you can warn users after a revert.

But a know my edition about the categorization of Tea Party movement, is more controversy, but when I found Tea Party movement, in the category of the "international" crisis of 2009-2010, I just thinking it's an American's point of view. Making a link between, an economic crisis and a political movement is so subjective. --Nouill (talk) 12:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then you can remove it again explaining your reasons in your edit summary. Although edit summaries are not mandatory, when removing content you have to provide one - See WP:FIES. Happy editing! --M4gnum0n (talk) 14:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

October 2011

Hello. I noticed that you attempted to file a deletion discussion (on the article List of French military leaders) but did not complete the process. Please note that, when listing an article for deletion, a discussion page needs to be made for other users to discuss whether to keep or delete the article. This is typically done by following the steps listed here. Note that if you are editing as an unregistered user, you cannot create a discussion page. Please consider registering an account or asking another user to help you complete the process at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. Thank you. Monty ₈₄₅ 20:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Yes sorry, after I have modified the page, I changed my mind (I remembered the difference between wp:fr and wp:en for the deletion of uncompleted list; the list will be deleted soon on wp:fr), and I forgot that I have modified the page. :S --Nouill (talk) 21:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Featured pic on main-page proposal

Hi, it's nice. But I'm wondering why you don't put the FP text entirely under it; at narrower window-widths, the left-side text is pretty dysfunctional. Then you could make the pic a little bigger. Tony (talk) 01:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like that ? Does it unbalance the left and right section ? --Nouill (talk) 14:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Much better; but I see when I stretch my window-width out, the capped title sits on the left side still (can you centre it over the pic?), and the caption text is stretches out to fill the increased width of that left-side section the featured pic occupies, although the pic itself maintains its size (and width). You might be able to justify the text so it sits squarely under the width of the pic irrespective of the entire window-width ... or it may not be possible.

Your thumbnails for ITN and OTD are still tiny; I'd remove them if they can't sit at the top of each of those sections, just a single pic occupying the whole width of those columns. Tony (talk) 14:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just seen your recent edit; it wasn't the caption I suggested centring (it still stretches much wider than the width of the pic when widening the window ... that wiki-syntax is a bore, isn't it!), but the "PICTURE OF THE DAY" title, above the pic. That's still left-justified. Tony (talk) 15:26, 3 September 2012 (UTC) PS OTD and ITN pics are better ... the ITN only because it's a portrait, which can survive tininess quite well. You might consider re-ordering the points so thtat the Marvin Hamlisch comes first, adjacent to the pic. Tony (talk) 15:29, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All the title are left-justified, it will be strange if just one title is centered and not the other. :/ I have suppress the two right picture, it may be not definitive but, have the picture in the top/head of the section in tiny screen, isn't really good. --Nouill (talk) 15:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	This barnstar is awarded to you in appreciation of your submission to the WP:2012 main page redesign proposal. The straw poll has now closed (see results), but the discussion continues on the talk page – hope to see you there! Evad37 (talk) 00:38, 1 November 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tower of God, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SIU (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 00:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi ! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 17:01, Sunday, November 10, 2024 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi ! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 17:01, Sunday, November 10, 2024 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:02, 24 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) 14:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Nouill. 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]

Deletion

Hello, I'm Dbsseven. I noticed that you recently removed content from DaVita without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. I noticed you removed awards from a number of company pages. I have restored the content to a few. I did so where the content was factual and well cited with secondary sources, not advertisements, as far as I could tell.

What you restore is obvious promotional content... It isn't much to explain. Obscure contents who affirm that in 2010, or 2005 that the company have the best customer service or he is friendly employers on 200x is obvious promotional. It isn't encyclopedic.

To be 331 on Forbes ranking, it is also not encyclopedic. Forbes isn't a official ranking. It's just a ranking by revenus. What to be 331 on Forbes ranking give about encyclopedic information ? The encyclopedic information is just to give the revenus, which is given the most of time... --Nouill (talk) 06:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I really not appreciate that you revert 6 times. That you use automatic message to contact me. --Nouill (talk) 06:43, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is an "official ranking"? Official according to who? Simply listing revenue is inappropriate, as WP policy states "wikipedia is not... a listings of unexplained statistics". Revenue would not provide context of the scale of this revenue and the relative size of the company, while a ranking does. (You also appear to have also confused the Forbes 500 with the Fortune 500.) Rankings are commonly used in a number of articles for companies, organizations, and individuals to provide context, see BAE Systems, Manchester United F.C., and Queen Elizabeth II.

I do not see how any of this content is advertising (intended "to promote or sell a product, service or idea"). If there is a problem with language or NPOV, then the language should be addressed, but simply blanking content is inappropriate. Can you please explain how these is content is intended "to promote or sell a product, service or idea"? Otherwise it does not meet the very definition of advertisement. Dbsseven (talk) 14:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"2010 and 2011 “Top 100 Military Friendly Employers” according to G.I. Jobs" => For you, it isn't promotional ? What encyclopedic information this sentence give ? G.I Jobs, a obscure magazine, give a reward name "Top 100 Military Friendly Employers" (for me the reward itself look promotional), 6 years ago. The methodology of the ranking isn't explain. I have not clue to understand how this company obtain this reward, and what this reward represent. Perhaps this companies is n°1, perhaps is n°100 in this ranking... And this example is typical of those sections.

The only magazine who is notable in those section is Fortune/Forbes. And it presence is very minor compared to the remaining. This presence don't compensate the remaining. Personally I don't like much Fortune/Forbes ranking. It's not thematic, compare and ranking companies who work on all sector, oil, industry, forestry, retail, fishing, agriculture, computing, etc. Some sector like retail have a natural huge revenue, with little profit, like retail, and others it is the contrary, like R&D sector. It not make sense to do compare the revenue of sector like that. Moreover, it's just about USA, the companies doesn't stop their activities at the border, so it's a little americentrism. It doesn't give me lot of information to know that Davita is the 359 US companies by revenues. But I can understand you want to keep those sentence about Fortune/Forbes, but if it just that, don't reestablish all the section. --Nouill (talk) 15:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But you have not said how these awards attempting "to promote or sell a product, service or idea". Unless they do so, they do not meet the very definition of advertisement. Also in the deletions from these articles are awards from United States Environmental Protection Agency, Newsweek, PC World, Thomson Reuters, Bloomberg, Financial Times, Inc. (magazine), all reputable and notable in their own rights. Stating the awards are for American companies is "americentrism" suggests that only international bodies should be cited, so should the César Awards be deleted as well?

"I have not clue to understand how this company obtain this reward"... And I do not understand how the Academy Awards or Nobel Prizes are selected. Not understanding is not a justification for deletion. (And most/all of these were cited, where you could likely find the evaluation criteria.)

Fundamentally, It states explicitly in the first line of the policy for achieving NPOV "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased." Dbsseven (talk) 15:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And the next sentence is " Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone.". But, for a majority of the section we're talking about, that is impossible to reformulate. Because the problem isn't the form, the problem is that the presence of those sentences isn't pertinent.

Compare those section to the Academy Awards or Nobel Prizes don't have sense. And the different between those section and nobel prize is that nobel is very very notable and the noble prize is given for a very particular reason that is usually largely explain.

Pc World is perhaps notable but the different "Fastest ISP rankings" for PC World much less. And ranking like "Top 5 Most Innovative Law Firm, FT Innovative Lawyer Awards, 2015" is promotional, the source is notable, but it is promotional.

I don't really understand why you want so much keep all those section, when in the same time wp:en (much more compare to the others linguistic version of wikipedia) have a huge and notable problem with promotional content on companies articles. --Nouill (talk) 16:26, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PC world giving an award for "Fastest ISP rankings" is relevant on an article about a telecommunications company. A law award from the Financial Times is notable for a law firm which works in Banking & Finance. And my point about the Nobel Prizes and Academy Awards is that these are necessarily subjective awards where the selection of one versus another is often unclear (see Nobel Prize controversies), and yet they are included. If the citations for each award does not give enough detail to reach a consensus on inclusion, then that is another issue, but blanket deletion of all awards is not supported by WP policy.

I have not said it want to keep all the content. I am pointing out the tone and any bias (if present) cannot be improved by other editors if that content is removed. Stating it is "impossible" presumes about the capability if all other editors. WP is collaborative (WP:OWN). I believe the language can be changed for a more NPOV without removing the content entirely. And I believe at-least one other editor on each article thought this content was worthy of inclusion (the editors who added it initially).

And asserting that wp:en has a problem is an Ad hominem argument (and without provided support) which is not productive. Dbsseven (talk) 17:14, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't like those section are recently add. For examples for "Red Ventures", this section is here since the creation of the article in 2008 (And that article and section is look created by someone relative to the companies with promotional goal, and for the others articles concerned is look similar...). So I think if the section could be improved significantly, I would be done since longtime.

I don't understand the encyclopedic content, to have a PC world award in 2011 about the Fastest ISP, on the Charter Communications. And when I check the 2017 ranking, Charter isn't in the top 10 ranking. If we keep this ranking, we should keep the last ranking, and not just the edition who are good for the companies, no ? --Nouill (talk) 17:41, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These are exactly the sorts of conversations that should be happening on the article talk pages prior to deletion. If the neutrality of content in is in question, there are ^[promotion?] and ^[promotion?] tags that I believe would be more productive than deleting. However, I am cautious about a view of "created by someone relative to the companies with promotional goal" which does not appear in keeping with wikipedia's policy to assume good faith. Dbsseven (talk) 17:54, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. Companies article created be Wikipedia:Single-purpose account, who disappear just after, it isn't against assume good faith, to assume there very good chance that there are relative with the companies. assume good faith is good but it doesn't mind we are naive. And the Terme of Use is a little explicit about what is wrong with paid contributions.

I don't believe ^[promotion?] and ^[promotion?] would be more productive than deleting. --Nouill (talk) 18:42, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a sockpuppet and clearly believe some of this content is not promotional and should be retained. This is exactly what should be discussed on the talk pages. I am going to propose specific language on the talk pages for each of the articles in an effort to find a consensus on each per WP:DDE. I hope we can discuss specific issues on specific awards there. Generalities do not appear to be a productive avenue of conversation here. Dbsseven (talk) 20:19, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't imply that you are. I'm just talking about the creator of those section or articles. --Nouill (talk) 20:23, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't saying you were implying anything. My point was that another editor (me), not a sock nor naive, believes some of this content should be retained. This should be discussed on the talk pages, and removal of content without discussion is disruptive to finding a consensus/NPOV. Dbsseven (talk) 20:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Continued Deletions

Nouill, I can tell you believe you're doing the right thing in deleting content you see as promotional. I do understand; many of the edits I make are done in the same spirit. None of us want Wikipedia to be an ad farm!

It's also clear from your edit history that you've made similar deletions on many, many pages, and had those edits reverted by most of the editors who tend to work those pages. As other people have pointed out on your own Talk page, swooping in and scrapping entire sections without discussion on articles' Talk pages - however well intentioned - comes off as malicious.

There are ample examples of Awards and recognition sections on Wikipedia articles. I'll grant you that the majority of these are for people (Elon Musk, Stevie Wonder, etc.), but they also exist for companies (Adaptive Insights), products (Nissan GT-R), and even songs (Kilometro (song)). It's a rather standard way to talk about major achievements over the course of a subject's life, whether that subject be a person, a company, or a car. As for what is and isn't major, that really comes down to context.

Now, I'll grant you that on looking over the section, it's a bit bloated and could use a good trimming! But an outright deletion with "ads" as the only comment? You asked me in your reversion to "assume good faith," and I'd ask you to do the same.

Now that I've posted here and on the article talk page, I'm going to go back and revert your change one last time. While I do it, though, I'll go through and get rid of entries that aren't weighty enough to be included, and generally just trim things a bit. Does that sound fair?

If you have other concerns, please feel free to respond here or on the article's talk page. Thanks very much! Aussietommartin (talk) 15:58, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Nouill. 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]

deletions without tagging

Hello Nouill I ran across some of your edits recently and noticed you had deleted whole sub-sections of content, with very brief edit summaries of "ads". I appreciate your efforts to keep ads out of wikipedia and agree that some of the content could have been cleaned up or summarized, and some could be removed. However, much of the content was not advertorial, in my opinion. As has been discussed previously, simply deleting this content is not necessarily helpful. Could you please use the {{Advert section}} tag so other editors may see and discuss the content? Dbsseven (talk) 10:18, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't appreciate your effort to retablish promotional content. I really don't appreciate. I don't appreciate the continual revert of my edit. If you continue that for my it will become harassement. If you agree that some content could be cleaned up, why you retablish it ? Because simply retablish promotional content is absolutely not helful, it just retablish promotional content. Your opinion that isn't promotional content don't have mush value that my oponion it is promotional content. --Nouill (talk) 12:03, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to hear you don't appreciate my edits. I only restore what I believed to be non-promotional content. And I cleaned it up by restoring it as prose with NPOV language. This style of including awards/achievements/honors has been accepted by consensus on a number of other articles as a NPOV way of including this content. (see: here and here) Dbsseven (talk) 14:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those discussions doesn't show a consensus for those section. Only one person respond you on Talk:Charter_Communications#deletion_of_content. And on Talk:XPO_Logistics#Potentially_malicious_removal_of_Awards_and_recognition_section, the section is created by someone connected with the subject ... --Nouill (talk) 15:00, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The point was those were discussions in an attempt to find consensus. (And please ensure you assume good faith of other editors.) I know you are trying to keep WP free of advertisement, and I appreciate that. However, "as a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased" from WP:NPOVHOW. If you don't feel you can change it adequately for a NPOV, tagging it allows other editors to contribute to the consensus. Dbsseven (talk) 15:30, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Nouill. 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) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 2019

Hello, I'm Walter Görlitz. I noticed that you recently removed content from Aroundtown SA without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This section is a just a very promotional section. It isn't acceptable to have that type of section in wikipedia.Nouill (talk) 20:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:24, 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) 00:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]