User talk:Olcoispeau

Welcome!

Hello, Olcoispeau, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, like MAVERLINN, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Passportguy (talk) 14:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of MAVERLINN

A tag has been placed on MAVERLINN, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Passportguy (talk) 14:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

December 2015

Hello, I'm Grayfell. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to the page Mergers and acquisitions, because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 23:22, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The book is too narrow in focus and the link to a shopping page is too promotional. If the book contains relevant information it could be used as a source for specific content in the article, but as an additional reading link it's far too much like WP:SPAM. Please discuss on the article's talk page before restoring. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 23:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a bot

I'm not a bot. I have assessed your edit with my own eyes, and think that it's too spammy. Please self-revert and discuss, either here or on the article's talk page, otherwise you are WP:EDITWARing. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 23:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

December 2015

Your recent editing history at Mergers and acquisitions‎ shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Grayfell (talk) 23:34, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

======== I do not understand ============ did you get my last message ?

Hello Grayfell,

Nice to meet you. I can remove whatever link to the publisher you think appropriate to remove. This is no problem.

I believe this book is useful, as an add-on to the bibliography because M&A in China is different from M&A in the ROW (say Europe or USA). Emerging countries have different rules. In addition, China is now a very big economy and M&A in China is an important topic for corporate development.

I do not think this subject is too narrow.

Looking forward to reading from you. I cannot find my previous message.

Best, Oliver

PS. I sent a previous (quite similar) message on a talk page but it may be lost somewhere as I am not too familiar with this process.

I managed to recover it finally :

I am not a bot

I'm not a bot. I have assessed your edit with my own eyes, and think that it's too spammy. Please self-revert and discuss, either here or on the article's talk page, otherwise you are WP:EDITWARing. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 23:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

hello !

Nice to meet you, even if do not agree, and nice to see you are not a BOT. I added this book but I can remove whatever link you feel inappropriate with the publisher, this is no problem.

If you want to address M&A issues seriously: M&A in China is different from many other countries. It requires a specific adjustement to classic skills. And as you know, China is a very big economy and a very complicated country, so I guess, this book in useful in the bibliography.

Looking forward to read from you.

Best, Oliver

Hello, Oliver.

The book may be useful, but it's much better to use sources to expand the article. Alas, adding books into the 'see also' section is a technique used by authors and spammers to promote works. For example, it appears that something similar may have happened to the article about half an hour after you added that book the first time. Because you created a page that was deleted as spam, and because you've added the book to other pages (on the French Wikipedia), I am concerned that this might be what's happening here, but I hope I'm wrong. World Scientific is an established publisher, but these problems are unfortunately wide-spread and should not be dismissed simply because of that. Publishers/authors/editors have done it before, but again, I hope I'm wrong.

Adding a source to a statement gives readers the chance to verify if a statement is valid. Adding a book to a 'see also' section is much broader. It acts as an endorsement of the book. If you would like to use that book as a source, that would be great, but 'further reading' links should be used with restraint. At the very least, please leave out the link to the publisher's profile of the book. The ISBN number, or a Google Books link, would serve the same purpose in a less promotional way.

Sorry if this was unduly harsh, and thanks for bringing this to discussion. Grayfell (talk) 00:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

=============================================================

Hi Grayfell,

Thanks for your message, this is really appreciated.

I started to read this afternoon a few wiki-articles and I felt like filling some holes, in fact I realized that this M&A practice in China and emerging countries was not well covered at all, as this is really a different type of M&A due to imperfect markets, fast growth, culture gaps for example.

This is why I wanted to add this M&A in China book as a reference and later submit an add-on for the article on M&A in emerging markets, and China in particular. But I realized I needed a few days to produce a good concise draft. Of course, if you are happy to add the book, I will remove the link or anything that worries you: my intention was just to add it as a proof that the book does exist -- not for promotional reasons. Also because I noticed that some other authors were indexed with a link so I felt it may be needed.

On the French side, I already added :

~ material to the introduction about M&A which needed a bit more flesh, I plan to review and add stuff to other sections later, ~ bibliography to M&A (which was very thin, including an early version (2012) of M&A in China in French), ~ and did the same on the Bourse (Stock market), because the bibliography was so thin too (2 books only with one quite unrelated to the core topic) and the name of one author in need of a correction.

Of course I have no intention to spam anyone, only add a few things which may be useful. I was convinced that deletion was related to some patrolling bots, testing if I was spammer/vandal, this is why I reverted the changes. I am really sorry for this, and certainly lacked editing "finesse".

When you write that authors/editors are trying to push books to you ... now I can easily understand your concern ! so to make sure there is no misunderstanding I must tell you that I am one of the co-authors of some of two books. I added them (Dictionary 7th print, M&A in China - new international version), well ... because I know them well and feel they fill a gap in the bibliography. As there is no real equivalent book on their respective markets, these two luckily became references (unlike some earlier works), but perhaps I should rather not mention them at all.

Best, Oliver

I greatly appreciate your honesty. It sounds like you understand why this is a cause for concern, and are acting in good faith, which is the best place to start. You should look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (specifically WP:SELFCITE). Simply put, citing yourself is fine when done carefully and within certain limits. I recommend using the book as a source for specific points, rather than as a general "see also", but I will leave it up to you how to do that. I've changed the link to a Google Books one, which is slightly more useful for research, and slightly less commercial.

It may be helpful to remember that different language's Wikipedias can have different policies, also. What it acceptable for the French one may not be acceptable here.

I am not alone in feeling that Wikipedia has a systemic bias (Wikipedia:Systemic bias explains this more), so I am glad to see efforts to expand coverage of non-Anglophone countries and topics. Wikipedia is confusing and sometimes very messy. Thanks for sticking with it in spite of that. Grayfell (talk) 02:47, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

=====================================================

Hi Grayfell,

Many thanks for your kind reply and for ajusting the reference. I will draft a specific paragraph on M&A in emerging markets as mentionned and suggest it as an add-on to the article, then connect M&A in China as one of the source for this point. I keep in mind what you mentionned as different rules in different country, will try to continue to improve a bit the French side too.

All the best, and Season's Greetings. Oliver

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Olcoispeau. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Please do not add references to sources you are affiliated with. Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:03, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 2016

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Singapore. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Your additions seem to be promoting one particular book. Please refrain from citing sources you are affiliated with. Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

===========

Well I have no intention to self promote but I am trying to fix a number of omissions in the economic presentation of a number of countries. I can cite many underlying sources but I think it is also honest to be accountable for what I cite, especially since this is based on numerous sources. If you prefer, I can go back to more ancient sources. But It seems to me that many of these additions are needed since many useful things have been omitted. You can remove the reference and I can try to find other references, but removing everything seems a bit extreme. Best OlivierOlcoispeau (talk) 12:25, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SELFCITE

Hi. I see that you have been adding citations to a number of article. However, you additions are giving the impression that you are trying to promote your book. Although in some cases the references might be useful, in other cases there are already enough references available. Personally, I think it would be helpful if you propose changes to the talk page in cases where you have to cite your own book. Thank you. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In order to avoid any misunderstanding, I will research and find other sources, this is no problem for me. I will also rephrase some sentence since they have been extracted from my research ... and then I should probably spend my time on other things. Olcoispeau (talk) 13:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, I will delete all quotes and reference to my work since this is inappropriate. Olcoispeau (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. If you want to add citations to your work and feel that it will benefit the article, simply suggest them on the talk page, declare your COI and let other editors decide. (This is essentially a way of peer review on Wikipedia). I would like to thank you for helpful attitude and for helping to improve Wikipedia. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:19, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, I will remove everything which may be considered a possible quote from my work. If other people want to add something, I am sure they will be able to find plenty of references. Olcoispeau (talk) 15:25, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not your warning

Please stop posting about this. You read a message on someone else's talk page. It was not directed at you. It did not mention you. You did not do anything wrong. It had nothing to do with you. I have already explained this to you on my talk, where you asked about it. [1] I also commented on another user's page where you also raised the issue [2] Just drop it. Don't bring this up on the user whose page you read it on either [3] [4]. No-one mentioned the possibility of socking except you. The more fuss about this the more it looks like WP:TROLLING by a WP:SOCK. Meters (talk) 20:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for that, it was unclear to me. Olcoispeau (talk) 08:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Meters I believe what was Olcoispeau was referring to was this. PewDiePie444 left a blocked template (for socking) on this talk page. Olcoispeau, as a new editor, had a very legitimate reason to be concerned. As a result Olcoispeau went to PewDiePie444's talk page where he saw this and thought it was written for him. It actually wasn't.

@Olcoispeau, this message was not directed at you. It was directed at PewDiePie444. Usually when we contact editors, we go to their talk page. If someone wants to contact you, they will usually come to your talk page.

Just though I would clarify. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:15, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thanks for that. I was a bit concerned and now grateful for clarification. Olcoispeau (talk) 16:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Silk Road copyright problem

I have removed content you added to the above article, as it appears to have been copied from http://dsr.nii.ac.jp/rarebook/02/index.html.en, a copyright web page. All content you add to Wikipedia must be written in your own words. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions or if you think I made a mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, it's probably too close, although I tried not to do a copy paste. I will amend this. Olcoispeau (talk) 07:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Steppe Route

Hi, I'm Mabalu. Olcoispeau, thanks for creating Steppe Route!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Good start to an article that would benefit from additional in-text citations.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Mabalu (talk) 11:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mabalu, the page is still work in progress for sure. I am working on additional sources and developments but still need to check a few things before including the materials. Best, Olivier Olcoispeau (talk) 13:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steppe Route Tolkien Reference

My removal of the Notes section was not vandalism - I put the reason on the article Talk page. I thought that I had pointed to the Talk page in the edit description, but apparently I did not. Sorry about that. I'm happy to engage in a discussion as to whether or not the Tolkien connection should be there. I won't make any further edits until we've had an opportunity to discuss. Bemis Ampleforth (talk) 18:07, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and was about to point that out here. See WP:VANDALISM. It was badly sourced. Someone writing in a Journal of Martial Arts Anthropology is not a reliable source for literature, and Nicholas de Vere is fringe. Doug Weller talk 15:21, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Olcoispeau. 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]

February 2018

Your addition to Steppe Route has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:29, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I sourced and quoted some new and limited information / facts about humans out of Africa arriving at the gate of the Eurasian steppe from Nature and National Geographic. If can that be be considered a "violation" since these are just the facts, I am happy to reformulate that again, but can you please be a bit more specific ? Best, Olivier Olcoispeau (talk) 13:50, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What you sanction on the basis of "plaggiarism" is just the scientific facts and I am quoting the sources, should I rephrase it at length, should we rephrase 2 + 2 = 4 because someone wrote it somewhere, very often from open sources ? Possibly what I did is not perfect and needs adjustment but the way you act as an administrator is pathetic. The good news is that I am confident AI will soon be much more helpful than the kind of "work" you do and help resolve in real time and in a constructive way what is for now a tremendous waste of time - with a nasty twist since clearly you are not benevolent, and this seems the outlet for your numerous frustrations. Olcoispeau (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Puerto Galera

this edit caught my eye. Wondering about WP:original research, I looked at this sorce, which is cited in suppofrt of the portion of the article where your edit added an assertion. I found no support there. Please read WP:BURDEN.

I have not reverted your edit because I see that it was a part of a series of edits making wider changes in the article (see [5]). Please look back over those edits with WP:RS and WP:V in mind. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:42, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message and mentioning this. I have a look at it now, i checked and read this source before (full article), but I understand i need tot) my recheck it again. Let's keep in touch on this, the reference must be clear. Best, Olcoispeau (talk) 22:48, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the source again, on page 55, second paragraph you find : "Prostitution is illegal in the Philippines but, for nearly three decades, Aplaya, Puerto Galera, has been one of the many sites of the Philippines sex tourism industry." Best, Olcoispeau (talk) 22:57, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've adjusted the indentation level above to make this easier to follow. I've looked at the part of the cited source you mention, and see a disconnect which led to this exchange. The problematic added content says, "especially Sabang Beach"; the supporting source cited does not mention Sabang. Failure to find that mention is what sparked this exchange.

The source does say, "Aplaya, Puerto Galera, ...", perhaps referring to Sabang. My Tagalog-speaking wife tells me that aplaya means beach, and googling aplaya turns up hits for a number of Philippine beach resort areas (but not for Sabang, AFAICS). I've never heard that usage in PG, but I'm not a Tagalog speaker and don't know whether or not it is common for the term aplaya to be used in Tagalog in PG to refer specifically to Sabang (as opposed to e.g., White Beach). A footnote in the source says that aplaya is used there as "a pseudonym".

If you think that "especially Sabang Beach" has sufficient weight for inclusion in the article, I'd say that stronger support is needeed; perhaps something like this or this. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:34, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, okay now I see your point, it is great to know you are in the Phils. It was also my impression that "aplaya" is too generic - but this level of detail may be difficult to see from Sydney. I thought useful to put this Sabang "disambiguation" after being there a few times (I am often in the Philippines). I felt based on my own experience in PG, that it was not fair to include all of PG municipality in that. White Beach situated 12 km away is really family oriented, more local and very different from Sabang - but still considered part of PG. "Sabang area" splits in fact in 3 beaches : Sabang beach (very busy near the port, many bars), Big La Laguna (more quiet), Small La Laguna (more quiet). Hope this is useful, cheers Olcoispeau (talk) 09:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've adjusted the indent level of your comment above to make this easier to follow. See Fixing format errors in WP:TPG.

Re "I felt based on my own experience in PG, that ...", please read the WP:NOR policy. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:43, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I will drop a word to Rosemary Wiss at Sydney Univ. Dpt of anthropology ... Olcoispeau (talk) 09:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Olcoispeau. 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]

January 2019

Your addition to Anilao has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. This is your final warning. Further violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy will result in you being blocked from editing. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:31, 7 January 2019 (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]

Nomination of St Giles' Fair (disambiguation) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article St Giles' Fair (disambiguation) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St Giles' Fair (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Certes (talk) 19:24, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]