User talk:Zarzuelauk
Marina de Gabaráin
[edit]Thank you very much for Marina de Gabaráin. Unbelievable that we had no article about her so far. Sorry about an edit conflict. Donostia: I didn't mean to insult, I love the city, even sang a concert there, in choir. Perhaps say "Basque" somewhere, and/or 1917 history. To link a double name looks confusing. - I'd like to present her in the DYK section of the Main page, for that purpose we need a reference at the end of each paragraph. - I fixed some overlinking, - we don't link current countries and their capitals. We don't link to a composer when their work has an article, to avoid a Sea of blue. Readers who really don't know who Rossini was can be sure to find a link in La Cenerentola. I didn't fix yet what we call Easter eggs, such as a link that looks like the city of Venice, but goes to La Fenice, - much better to show the well-known theatre. You could do those, also apply projects on the talk page, compare Jessye Norman. - Caution: some of the text reads like it was copied, - that's not allowed. I may be wrong, but if yes, please change. Happy editing! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:30, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt: Thank you very much for using your huge expertise to improve the new page for Marina de Gabaráin. I too was amazed when I failed to find this rather famous singer represented - even on the Spanish Wiki - when I needed to research her yesterday, for some CD liner notes which I'm writing (the issue of this CD set from Nimbus will expand her rather small commercial discography). None of the text was copied: as you may gather, I am a regularly published professional writer on opera (though far from a Wikipedia expert!) and I would never do such a thing. Spanish singers are a particular area of expertise for me, and so I have been able to correct certain mistakes and omissions which I found in my main source, which was the Spanish dictionary of singers I've cited. It would be great to feature this marvellous singer on DYK at some point! Zarzuelauk (talk) 10:44, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- All fine, let's do it together. Lovely to hear that's it's your own polished writing, not of someone else. What do you think we should say, given only 150 characters? ... and whatever is mentioned in that sentence needs a reference right after it is mentioned first (not just at the end of the paragraph). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:29, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt: Thank you very much once again. For opera fans, the most significant thing about this singer was her centrality to the first, important international revival of La Cenerentola. But for Wiki readers, I think more interesting might be the curious fact that a Spanish singer trained in London, and made her stage debut (as Carmen) in Scotland! I'm not the expert here, but maybe something along the lines of "DYK... ... that the Basque-Spanish mezzo-soprano Marina de Gabaráin trained in London, and made her stage debut as Carmen in Scotland?" The latter fact is referenced as soon as it's mentioned. What do you think? Zarzuelauk (talk) 11:52, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- I'm going to nominate now, and notice that neither the word Basque nor the Cenerentola in Glyndebourne was the international work's revival are in the article. You decide if that should change, and I'll work around it. ---Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt: Thank you Gerda. No they aren't mentioned, which is one reason I thought the more general knowledge about the Spanish singer trained in London and debuting as Carmen in Scotland was a better piece of entertaining trivia. We don't know if Marina felt herself of Basque or of Spanish heritage (or a mixture of both, as her family name suggests) so I don't mention that. And although the Glyndebourne revival certainly marked the start of Cenerentola's international resurgence (and its first complete outing on record) I haven't seen proof that it was first to state that definitely (doubtless somebody would crop up to say that it was done by students in Denmark in 1948, or something like that!)
- I'm going to nominate now, and notice that neither the word Basque nor the Cenerentola in Glyndebourne was the international work's revival are in the article. You decide if that should change, and I'll work around it. ---Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- I'll think about it. I looked for her in the bible of opera singers, Kutsch/Riemens, - google presents only the page where she is not listed, Gabarain, saying that she is under "de Gabarain". I have no time for searching if the page is available online, but Operissimo has the same text. I added that, and another teacher who has an article at least in German. There are a few more details, but - no time right now. Please have some refs (can be duplicate) for the conductors and some opera houses, and the recordings besides Cenerentola. Actually, saying with which conductor she did what kind of music where would be better than what we call laundry lists (of great names) ;) - A bit more lead would be good but not necessary. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:22, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt: Yes Gerda, I hate laundry lists too - the Barbirolli and Ansermet gigs are obvious from the discography, but the rest are from Sagarmínaga and unspecified (though I would put a lot of money on El amor brujo accounting for most of them!) We can't of course make even well-informed guesses here, though. Where did you find your information that Lotte Leonard taught her? It might be worth referencing that, as Leonard's teaching doesn't appear in the Spanish Dictionary and I've not seen it mentioned elsewhere (in old theatre programmes) either. Something had gone astray with the first paragraph, which I have corrected in line with the information you've chosen to present there. Thank you again. Zarzuelauk (talk) 15:47, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry about malformatting the ref described above, Operissimo, based on Kutsch/Riemens Großes Sängerlexikon. It has one more teacher, just named Ricci, in London, - it also mentions Gerhardt as for Lied specifically. Mussorgky at La Scala seems also worth mentioning. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:55, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt:Gerda, I've spent some time correcting various typos, mistakes and errors which have crept into the page during the last batch of edits. San Sebastián is not the new name for Donostia, but the old one which would have been what international visitors (not locals) called the resort during the First World War years. It's always called "Donostia" now, officially. Bodas de sangre was her Colón debut, not a "later" contract. I can find no evidence that she ever played Marfa at La Scala - according to their (very reliable) archive, the only production they did during her performing career featured Irina Archipova in the role.
- Having now got hold of Marina's Großes Sängerlexicon entry, I can tell you that (alas) it is riddled with mistakes, many small, but also some major, as to dates, places and repertoire. Best I think to take it with "a pinch of salt". That's the danger of putting too much faith in secondary sources, as we know! Thank you again. Zarzuelauk (talk) 17:00, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for patience and understanding. Perhaps better you do the actual editing. How is this for Carissimi? We could use the Sängerlexikon as support for the facts mentioned anyway, no? I forgot that we need a ref also for the "Voice" paragraph. I guess that is also from the Spanish dictionary? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt:Thank you once again for your valuable thoughts here. There are fuller references for the Carissimi LP details elsewhere (notably discogs, which gives the numerical reference of the LP clearly, precisely as we state it in the discography.) Yes, the "voice" paragraph is after a critical summary in Sagarmínaga, added to Blom's comment and a look at contemporary reviews of her Glyndebourne work in Opera magazine's archive from the leading British critics of the day. I will reference that, and add it as you suggest. Last - I am minded to add a reference to her friendship and musical partnership with Julian Bream, which the German Lexicon reminded me of (I remember seeing moving TV footage of Bream and Marina performing Spanish song, years ago - but alas, it doesn't seem to have made it to YouTube!) Zarzuelauk (talk) 08:47, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- A Bream reference would be great! - Discogs is fine for me, but is not considered a RS for DYK purposes, sorry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:51, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you! - Almost there, I think, - we have Johanna André on the Main page today, DYK? Much shorter. I'd be curious what she did with Maazel when? Why don't you link the authors in the Sängerlexikon? (see André, you could copy the ref from there if you'd find the page number, which shouldn't be difficult, being by alpha. I have Walther Killy to take care of. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt:Thank you once again for your valuable thoughts here. There are fuller references for the Carissimi LP details elsewhere (notably discogs, which gives the numerical reference of the LP clearly, precisely as we state it in the discography.) Yes, the "voice" paragraph is after a critical summary in Sagarmínaga, added to Blom's comment and a look at contemporary reviews of her Glyndebourne work in Opera magazine's archive from the leading British critics of the day. I will reference that, and add it as you suggest. Last - I am minded to add a reference to her friendship and musical partnership with Julian Bream, which the German Lexicon reminded me of (I remember seeing moving TV footage of Bream and Marina performing Spanish song, years ago - but alas, it doesn't seem to have made it to YouTube!) Zarzuelauk (talk) 08:47, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for patience and understanding. Perhaps better you do the actual editing. How is this for Carissimi? We could use the Sängerlexikon as support for the facts mentioned anyway, no? I forgot that we need a ref also for the "Voice" paragraph. I guess that is also from the Spanish dictionary? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry about malformatting the ref described above, Operissimo, based on Kutsch/Riemens Großes Sängerlexikon. It has one more teacher, just named Ricci, in London, - it also mentions Gerhardt as for Lied specifically. Mussorgky at La Scala seems also worth mentioning. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:55, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt: Yes Gerda, I hate laundry lists too - the Barbirolli and Ansermet gigs are obvious from the discography, but the rest are from Sagarmínaga and unspecified (though I would put a lot of money on El amor brujo accounting for most of them!) We can't of course make even well-informed guesses here, though. Where did you find your information that Lotte Leonard taught her? It might be worth referencing that, as Leonard's teaching doesn't appear in the Spanish Dictionary and I've not seen it mentioned elsewhere (in old theatre programmes) either. Something had gone astray with the first paragraph, which I have corrected in line with the information you've chosen to present there. Thank you again. Zarzuelauk (talk) 15:47, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt: Thank you very much once again. For opera fans, the most significant thing about this singer was her centrality to the first, important international revival of La Cenerentola. But for Wiki readers, I think more interesting might be the curious fact that a Spanish singer trained in London, and made her stage debut (as Carmen) in Scotland! I'm not the expert here, but maybe something along the lines of "DYK... ... that the Basque-Spanish mezzo-soprano Marina de Gabaráin trained in London, and made her stage debut as Carmen in Scotland?" The latter fact is referenced as soon as it's mentioned. What do you think? Zarzuelauk (talk) 11:52, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- All fine, let's do it together. Lovely to hear that's it's your own polished writing, not of someone else. What do you think we should say, given only 150 characters? ... and whatever is mentioned in that sentence needs a reference right after it is mentioned first (not just at the end of the paragraph). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:29, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Marina de Gabaráin
[edit]
Hello! Your submission of Marina de Gabaráin at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Constantine ✍ 16:32, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
DYK for Marina de Gabaráin
[edit]
On 3 October 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Marina de Gabaráin, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that mezzo-soprano Marina de Gabaráin appeared as Bizet's Carmen in Scotland, and as Rossini's La Cenerentola in Glyndebourne in 1952, recorded the following year? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Marina de Gabaráin. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Marina de Gabaráin), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
The Derby/Epsom Derby
[edit]Hi there. I have reverted your addition at Epsom Derby – any such addition must be clearly supported by a reliable source; the source provided had nothing more than an incidental mention of "The Derby". In addition, the name is fairly well covered and any expansion of that should probably not be in the lead (see the History section for an example). You may also be interested to look through the multiple discussions related to the name of the race on the talk page. Regards, wjematherplease leave a message... 11:15, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- Please take note of WP:V and WP:NPOV. And WP:BRD – take it to the article talk page before adding this conjecture again. wjematherplease leave a message... 11:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hello again, and thank you. This is not a "conjecture", but a fact. There is no such race as the "Epsom Derby", and there never has been. The entries are made for "The Derby" (or "[sponsor's name] Derby", depending on which company is adding to the prize money). I believe it is logical to expect you or others of your belief to point to official sources naming the race "Epsom Derby", if you can - you won't find any, of course. Or do you believe Wikipedia should peddle a populist, journalistic untruth? As a member of the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography panel for sports I feel that my expertise in this area should be respected, so I will revert it again - please take this to the Discussion page if you feel that the information on "Epsom Derby" should be suppressed. Congenial wishes, Zarzuelauk (talk) 11:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia reflects what is verifiable via reliable sources. Nothing more. The official name (and additional related detail) is already covered in the article. Your additions to that constitute WP:Original Research, as they are not supported by a reliable source that explicitly states the same – using an "official" source that uses "The Derby" to support
"The nomenclature 'Epsom Derby' is a popular, journalistic convenience - especially in the United States of America, where it is used to differentiate The Derby from younger races, such as the Kentucky Derby or Florida Derby. It has no official basis."
is WP:SYNTHESIS; the source simply does not support a single word of this paragraph. Again, please read through WP policies. wjematherplease leave a message... 12:19, 16 November 2020 (UTC)- Thank you once again for your contribution. To call my addition "original research" is baffling, as nobody - even in the tediously recurring Wikipedia debates concerning the name of this page! - claims that 'Epsom Derby' is the official name. There is no justification to call this fact "original research" by me. 'Epsom Derby' has no official basis - fact - and no reputable source claims it has any such official basis. Citing journalists and website writers as justification, when pitted against all official, published histories of the race, is not defensible. As sensible and logical attempts to rename the page have been regularly squashed over ten years by American Wikipedia sport contributors, it seems only fair and sensible, to clarify for the casual reader's benefit that 'Epsom Derby' is certainly not the official name. Unfortunately, Wikipedia's use of the title rather conveys that untruth. I have cited the Weatherby site, because that is British Racing's official gatekeeper to race names. It uses 'The Derby', not 'Epsom Derby' in all references - though the actual "entries" page is not available to non-members. Actually a lot of the Wiki page's references are incorrect, in claiming that Timeform uses the term 'Epsom Derby' in its official results page - but I don't have the time to correct all those reference entries, and do not want to cause trouble! I've added a second reference, to an authoritative source on the race's name, which I hope will put your mind at rest. Otherwise, can you please clarify what you object to, in the form of words I have chosen? Yours convivially, Zarzuelauk (talk) 12:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- You are getting hung up on the official name – that issue is not in question – it is however probably the WP:COMMONNAME (mainstream UK sources also widely use "Epsom Derby", often in preference to "The Derby"). As for specific problems with your addition:
"It has no official basis"
is unnecessary/WP:UNDUE emphasis (especially for a neutral encyclopedia) when the "official name" has already been noted in the first sentence of the article; and phrases such as"popular, journalistic convenience"
are original research unless you have an explicit source (and I would expect it would need to be a quotation from said source). wjematherplease leave a message... 13:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)- Thank you once again. It is clearly undesirable for Wiki readers to be led (by the title of the page) to the false belief that 'Epsom Derby' is in any sense the official - or an official - name of this race. My edit clarifies that. As you are uneasy about my phrase 'popular journalistic convenience' (which I would defend academically on the basis of a huge weight of online evidence, including references included on the page) I am prepared to delete that, though it is certainly not "original research" but fair usage extrapolation from what is already explicit on this very page. Church specifically excludes the name 'Epsom Derby', of course, throughout his authoritative account - and I could reference countless other sources, were it not otiose to do so. Congenially yours, Zarzuelauk (talk) 13:17, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- Again, the official name is made clear in the opening sentence, so no further clarification is needed, especially within the lead section – which now discusses the name more than anything else! It is apparent that "popular journalistic convenience" is your personal conclusion, therefore it is the definition of original research (on Wikipedia – please read the policies). It is equally possible to find countless "authoritative" sources that do use "Epsom Derby", and equally pointless. wjematherplease leave a message... 14:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you again. I'd be grateful if you could point to any authoritative source (within Wikipedia guidelines) which refers to the race as 'Epsom Derby'. I have never seen one usage of the phrase, either in racing reference books or official BHA/Weatherbys documents this side of the Atlantic. I am clear that you dislike my phrase about "popular journalistic convenience", but I must insist that the phrase is not "original research" but common parlance - much like the spurious colloquial usage of 'Epsom Derby' itself! I will change it, if you approve, to "colloquial usage". I fear you underestimate the power of a Wikipedia page name: by perpetrating a colloquial title at the expense of the correct (i.e. original and/or official) race name Wikipedia cements misinformation, which is surely not the point of the exercise, is it? That's why the spurious 'British Open' was - eventually and after an unpleasant, protracted struggle - changed to 'The Open Championship'; and to call this race 'Epsom Derby' is equally wrong, as well as culturally highly insensitive. But I see as a golfing expert, you don't need me to point the case similarities out to you. Just because people are relaxed about incorrect information, does not make it acceptable. So it is important here to at least "name the beast", as opposed to merely not mentioning the elephant in the room. There's a mixed metaphor for you! Congenially yours, Zarzuelauk (talk) 14:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- I'm sure you can find them yourself if you were so inclined – Google is your friend. "Colloquial usage" would be far more accurate and better reflect the term's widespread use. As for your other points, please review WP policies (linked above) and earlier related discussions at Talk:Epsom Derby – they pretty much cover everything. wjematherplease leave a message... 15:17, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you again. I'd be grateful if you could point to any authoritative source (within Wikipedia guidelines) which refers to the race as 'Epsom Derby'. I have never seen one usage of the phrase, either in racing reference books or official BHA/Weatherbys documents this side of the Atlantic. I am clear that you dislike my phrase about "popular journalistic convenience", but I must insist that the phrase is not "original research" but common parlance - much like the spurious colloquial usage of 'Epsom Derby' itself! I will change it, if you approve, to "colloquial usage". I fear you underestimate the power of a Wikipedia page name: by perpetrating a colloquial title at the expense of the correct (i.e. original and/or official) race name Wikipedia cements misinformation, which is surely not the point of the exercise, is it? That's why the spurious 'British Open' was - eventually and after an unpleasant, protracted struggle - changed to 'The Open Championship'; and to call this race 'Epsom Derby' is equally wrong, as well as culturally highly insensitive. But I see as a golfing expert, you don't need me to point the case similarities out to you. Just because people are relaxed about incorrect information, does not make it acceptable. So it is important here to at least "name the beast", as opposed to merely not mentioning the elephant in the room. There's a mixed metaphor for you! Congenially yours, Zarzuelauk (talk) 14:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- Again, the official name is made clear in the opening sentence, so no further clarification is needed, especially within the lead section – which now discusses the name more than anything else! It is apparent that "popular journalistic convenience" is your personal conclusion, therefore it is the definition of original research (on Wikipedia – please read the policies). It is equally possible to find countless "authoritative" sources that do use "Epsom Derby", and equally pointless. wjematherplease leave a message... 14:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you once again. It is clearly undesirable for Wiki readers to be led (by the title of the page) to the false belief that 'Epsom Derby' is in any sense the official - or an official - name of this race. My edit clarifies that. As you are uneasy about my phrase 'popular journalistic convenience' (which I would defend academically on the basis of a huge weight of online evidence, including references included on the page) I am prepared to delete that, though it is certainly not "original research" but fair usage extrapolation from what is already explicit on this very page. Church specifically excludes the name 'Epsom Derby', of course, throughout his authoritative account - and I could reference countless other sources, were it not otiose to do so. Congenially yours, Zarzuelauk (talk) 13:17, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- You are getting hung up on the official name – that issue is not in question – it is however probably the WP:COMMONNAME (mainstream UK sources also widely use "Epsom Derby", often in preference to "The Derby"). As for specific problems with your addition:
- Thank you once again for your contribution. To call my addition "original research" is baffling, as nobody - even in the tediously recurring Wikipedia debates concerning the name of this page! - claims that 'Epsom Derby' is the official name. There is no justification to call this fact "original research" by me. 'Epsom Derby' has no official basis - fact - and no reputable source claims it has any such official basis. Citing journalists and website writers as justification, when pitted against all official, published histories of the race, is not defensible. As sensible and logical attempts to rename the page have been regularly squashed over ten years by American Wikipedia sport contributors, it seems only fair and sensible, to clarify for the casual reader's benefit that 'Epsom Derby' is certainly not the official name. Unfortunately, Wikipedia's use of the title rather conveys that untruth. I have cited the Weatherby site, because that is British Racing's official gatekeeper to race names. It uses 'The Derby', not 'Epsom Derby' in all references - though the actual "entries" page is not available to non-members. Actually a lot of the Wiki page's references are incorrect, in claiming that Timeform uses the term 'Epsom Derby' in its official results page - but I don't have the time to correct all those reference entries, and do not want to cause trouble! I've added a second reference, to an authoritative source on the race's name, which I hope will put your mind at rest. Otherwise, can you please clarify what you object to, in the form of words I have chosen? Yours convivially, Zarzuelauk (talk) 12:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia reflects what is verifiable via reliable sources. Nothing more. The official name (and additional related detail) is already covered in the article. Your additions to that constitute WP:Original Research, as they are not supported by a reliable source that explicitly states the same – using an "official" source that uses "The Derby" to support
- Hello again, and thank you. This is not a "conjecture", but a fact. There is no such race as the "Epsom Derby", and there never has been. The entries are made for "The Derby" (or "[sponsor's name] Derby", depending on which company is adding to the prize money). I believe it is logical to expect you or others of your belief to point to official sources naming the race "Epsom Derby", if you can - you won't find any, of course. Or do you believe Wikipedia should peddle a populist, journalistic untruth? As a member of the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography panel for sports I feel that my expertise in this area should be respected, so I will revert it again - please take this to the Discussion page if you feel that the information on "Epsom Derby" should be suppressed. Congenial wishes, Zarzuelauk (talk) 11:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 24
[edit]An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Voytek (producer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bunyan.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 19
[edit]An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Christopher Steel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Classic FM.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
[edit] | 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 |
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
[edit]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) 00:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)