| Revision as of 17:22, 15 May 2009 editPCPP (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,888 edits →Long term conflict regarding Falun Gong articles← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 21:13, 1 January 2025 edit undoArcticocean (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Extended confirmed users46,229 edits →Nomination for deletion of Template:Arbitration clerks chart: c/e | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <div style="padding-bottom: 0.5em;">{{Usertalk bar}}</div> | |||
| {{NOINDEX}}{{:User talk:AGK/Header}}<!---{{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| {{Message}} | |||
| |minthreadsleft = 1 | |||
| {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis | |||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
| |archiveprefix=User talk:AGK/Archive_ | |||
| |algo = old(36h) | |||
| |format=Y | |||
| |archive = User talk:AGK/Archive/48 | |||
| |minkeepthreads=0 | |||
| }} Putting MiszaBot on hold for now. ---> | |||
| |age=8760 | |||
| }}<div style="float: right" class="infobox"> | |||
| * ] | |||
| * () | |||
| * ]</div>__TOC__ | |||
| == ] == | |||
| {{/S|Unresolved|3=Unresolved; to respond to on Friday}} | |||
| Thanks for taking time to look into this issue. While the dispute may not constitute a basis for any action, could you please help to bring the article in compliance with NPOV? In particular, I'm not happy with the claim that Garabedian's role in bombing was "alleged", while he was found guilty in planting the bomb by the court of justice. Could you please advise if such wording is acceptable? I know it is a content issue, but a third party opinion would be very helpful. ]] 21:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : Your query is a difficult one to answer easily; please allow me to reflect on it before offering a response. ] 21:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sure, there's no rush. Thank you. ]] 04:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I may need to delay responding to this 'till Friday (15th May 2009) evening. A reply will come, though. ] 14:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==Hello, stranger!== | |||
| == AGK busy, Thursday 14 May. == | |||
| Hi, Arcticocean, | |||
| No, nope, nah, nyet, it's not going to work. Go back to your former name! You know us long-time editors don't adapt well to changes, especially small ones. | |||
| There's a possibility I might be unavailable tomorrow (well, technically today—I'm editing late), Thursday 14 May. If so, I'll respond to any outstanding messages or matters that require my attention on Thursday evening or on Friday. | |||
| Any way, in case you have indeed transitioned to a new identity, I hope I'll run into you on this project in the future (in a positive way, I mean). Just spend some time working on some subject that brings a smile to your face. And stay away from noticeboards. Take care, <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 06:00, 21 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks, ] 23:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :You might want to change the target page for the redirect on ]. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 06:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ==Exodus from Lydda== | |||
| ::<small>Sorry, the archive bot had buried your message away. I've just restored it.<br/></small>{{xt|And stay away from noticeboards}} – was better advice ever given to a Misplaced Pages editor? :) ] 13:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :{{/S|1=na|2=Unresolved}} | |||
| == Good article reassessment for ] == | |||
| ] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 23:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Editor experience invitation == | |||
| Hi Articocean. Have I asked you yet about whether or not you'd be interested in ]? I see you blank your talk page regularly and I'm worried I'm missing my name in the history even though I checked. 😅 I really hope this isn't a duplicate request. ] ] 16:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Hi, I'd appreciate your help with ]. The latest issue is that he keeps removing that people were killed during the "invasion" of Lydda, or "conquest" of Lydda, and wants to insert "battle" for Lydda. Historians differ as to whether it's accurate to call what happened a "battle"; some call it a "massacre," and some call it "ethnic cleansing"; for that reason, we chose a neutral term (invasion or conquest). But Malcolm keeps reverting. | |||
| ==Welcome back== | |||
| Hey there! I just wanted to give you a shoutout for nominating this ] for deletion. I’m surprised it’s been hanging around for about five years now and you definitely did the right thing by calling it out! Also, welcome back! I’m glad to see you’re active again and I hope you’ll stick around this time! Thanks for all your good work!<span id="Saqib:1730576685561:User_talkFTTCLNArcticocean" class="FTTCmt"> — ] (] I ]) 19:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)</span> | |||
| Here are examples of his editing: | |||
| * | |||
| *, May 8 | |||
| *, despite objections on talk, May 9 | |||
| *, May 13 | |||
| *, May 13 | |||
| *, May 13 | |||
| *, though it is standard practice to bold akas. | |||
| * | |||
| :Thanks for the welcome! It's nice to be contributing again. I have been part of the Misplaced Pages community for nearly 20 years, and after so long I was losing my enthusiasm. However, the break has done me some good. ] 10:15, 3 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| He has otherwise added no content. Is this acceptable editing? <font color="green">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font><font color="pink">]</font></sup></small> 23:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Nomination for deletion of ] == | |||
| ]] has been ]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ].<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> ] (]) 10:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for noticing this. We created this template as part of a drive to refresh the WikiProject, but the planned use of the template did not materialise. I have now tagged it for speedy deletion: the deletion is clear-cut and does not necessarily require a TfD. Thanks again, ] 12:13, 11 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::*The number of Palestinians who died was still in the lead, just not there twice. We have been over this point previously. | |||
| ::*The change to "battle" was with an excellent source, but SlimVirgin deleted it, and then deleted it again even after I made changes to meet her objections. | |||
| ::*The information about Rabin needs to be in the article, but not in the lead. This is all discussed on the talk page. | |||
| ::*removing bold type from Lydda death march had been discussed, and the majority of editors seem to support the change. No content was deleted. | |||
| ::*Etc. I general, I have tried to clarify points that need clarifying or adjusting. I do not anticipate making major additions to the article, and am not required to do so. | |||
| ::] (]) 00:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message == | |||
| :::You have reverted to "battle" four times, today against two editors. Three editors have explained to you on talk several times why "battle" is not neutral, yet you won't allow us to use another word. <font color="green">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font><font color="pink">]</font></sup></small> 00:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| <div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> | |||
| ::::You have been deleting sourced content ]. ] (]) 00:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| <div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</div> | |||
| <div class="ivmbox-text"> | |||
| Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. | |||
| The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. 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 ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. | |||
| :::::The push for euphemistic "battle" is not surprising. Dozens of similar attempts for example at ], despite the clear preference for that name among historians etc. My pro-Misplaced Pages bias says look at reliable sources and stay neutral. ] (]) 02:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::::::How do you figure that? The word 'battle' did not replace the word 'massacre', but replaced the word 'conquest.' ] (]) 11:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: {{Ec}} I appreciate genuine rebuttals of another editor's comments, folks, but I'd rather we keep things professional and avoid turning my talk page into a battle ground.<br>I'll examine this issue—including both SlimVirgin's report, and the responses to it—presently.<br>] 11:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: '''Query for Malcolm''': I'm interested in this argument of SlimVirgin's— | |||
| :::::::*''Historians differ as to whether it's accurate to call what happened a "battle"; some call it a "massacre," and some call it "ethnic cleansing"; for that reason, we chose a neutral term (invasion or conquest)'' | |||
| ::::::: Would you agree that that term is a suitable compromise between the various positions the sources hold? Wouldn't such a compromise—using a term our readers will find neutral—be the best course of action? Indeed, wouldn't opting for one term that a source uses, at the expense of another, be presenting to our readers a non-neutral point of view? | |||
| ::::::: ] 12:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| </div> | |||
| ::::::::My understanding is there was a fight (battle) between the defenders of Lydda and Israeli forces. Following that there may have been a massacre, which is certainly lamentable. That was, without doubt, followed by a population transfer. I do not think the term ], applies because there was never a policy (or even an unspoken intent) to remove the Palestinian population from Israeli. What happened was not ethnic cleansing, but more similar to the violence and population transfers that occurred on a far larger scale in the ], which had occurred just a few months previously. | |||
| </div> | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Coordination/MM/01&oldid=1258243333 --> | |||
| == Alt account == | |||
| ::::::::If others are unwilling to live with the word battle, I could accept the word "fight" instead. But battle is an accurate description. ] (]) 13:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::: Would you have an objection to "invasion" or "conquest"? ] 14:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Hey. Is actually your alt, or is someone messing around? Thanks, ] (]) 21:49, 23 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| (outdent) Some editors are unwilling to admit there was a fight, which appears intended to place all blame on Israel for these events. | |||
| :Ah nevermind, I see you created it. Should have checked the logs first. ] (]) 21:51, 23 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::No problem. Better safe than sorry! ] 08:58, 24 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ==Happy Birthday!== | |||
| <blockquote>As of late March-early April, there was no shortage of arms in Lydda. In fact, Lydda became a center of arms supply, military training and security coordination for the neighboring villagers. By late April Lydda had become a safe haven for thousands of refugees fleeing from Jaffa and the neighboring villages occupied by the Jewish militias, which almost doubled the town's original population. (6) While these refugees constituted a heavy burden on the city's economy and utilities, the military command managed to incorporate part of them into its militia and, during the truce, provided them with arms and training. A Haganah (7) intelligence report of March 10 assessed that "if attacked," Lydda's inhabitants intended "to rely solely on their own forces and not upon undependable and untrustworthy strangers." (8) ''Myths and historiography of the 1948 Palestine War revisited: the case of Lydda'' . </blockquote> | |||
| <!-- ##RW UNDERDATE## --> | |||
| {{ombox | |||
| |type = notice | |||
| |image = ] | |||
| |style = background:Darkgreen;border: 1px solid #CC9999; | |||
| |text = <span style="font-family:Book Antiqua;color:#FFFF00;">Wishing you all the best on your birthday! From the ].</span>--] (]) 02:44, 27 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| Thanks, {{u|DaniloDaysOfOurLives}}! ] 17:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I am certainly disinclined to willingly allow a WP article be turned into a propaganda vehicle for one side. I am willing to compromise, but the argument is because these small points have meaning. ] (]) 14:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Nomination for deletion of ] == | |||
| ]] has been ]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ].<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> <b>]]</b> (] • he/they) 20:21, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Sorry, I don't have any memory now of why such a template would have been needed. It was around 15 years ago. Regards, ] 21:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| : Which side would that be? ] 14:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::If you think ''either'' side might be inclined to slant the article, that is correct. It is also why it is harmful when editors on one side try to get rid of editors on the other side via wiki-lawering. NPOV flies better with both wings attached to the article. ] (]) 14:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Shot in the dark here, but would a completely separate choice of word—not suggested by any source, and thus not giving its allegiance to either side—not be preferable? Something like "hostilities"? | |||
| ::: Until agreement is reached for wording that doesn't violate the site's NPOV policy, I've installed an indefinite protection on the article. | |||
| ::: ] 15:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::: "capture". ] (]) 17:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: The "capture of Lydda" is certainly another option. Malcolm—what do you think of those two options? ] 17:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Malcolm, | |||
| ::::::Writing an article in wikipedia is not done in googling but in buying,reading and studying books and articles concerning the topic. The article given by your link is not even full. | |||
| ::::::That is not the way wikipedia functions. | |||
| ::::::You don't have access to any source, so you physically cannot help editors of reaching ] given you don't have any idea of any point of views on this topics. | |||
| ::::::Misplaced Pages is not the place for a compromise between you and others. | |||
| ::::::] (]) 17:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Don't make me laugh, Ceedjee. You would still be arguing the same argument if I bought a hundred books. As for the JSTOR article, I could have it by the end of the week. But the issue will not be resolved by my accumulating books and print outs of articles, it will be resolved by a willingness of editors on ''both'' sides demonstration a spirit of compromise. ] (]) 18:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::No, Ceedjee is right. It was a point made by Nishidani too, and the earlier editors. Many of the editors on the page are clearly unfamiliar with the events, and that's fine -- no one can be expected to know everything. But they are also not willing to do the reading. Malcolm has said he has no time. Continuing to revert and argue, and holding up the development of the article, while having no time to do any reading about the topic (except what's easy to find on Google) is extremely unhelpful, to the point of being disruptive. Some of us would like to see this article make it to FA. Ian Pitchford has offered a bounty if we achieve it. That means the article '''will have to contain all reliable POVs''' on the issue. That means going to academic libraries and reading, then adding the results of that reading to the page. That takes time and there is no shortcut. I would ask all editors who want to be involved, please go and do the reading. It will substantially reduce the arguments, because then you'll have real knowledge to add to the page, instead of spending time arguing about minutiae. <font color="green">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font><font color="pink">]</font></sup></small> 19:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: Well, what would such a compromise be? Synergy is essential in a collaborative encyclopedia, but all quite useless if we haven't developed a simple solution that forms a compromise between the various stances—and where that solution presents a ].<br>So, I'll ask again: of the different wording used by the various sources, which do all the editors support? ] 18:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::This was my original edit . But there were protests that did not accurately describe the events . So I changed it to this . Now that is rejected too. I feel I tried to accommodate the objections, but that there has been no effort from other editors to meet me half way because the flat rejection of the word "battle" is not acceptable. ] (]) 18:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::: Excluding the wording you've suggested but has been removed, Malcolm: of the different wording used by the various sources, which do you support? What's your "next preference"? ] 18:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::I could accept the word 'fight' to replace 'battle'. But battle is used in excellent sources, and I do not see why it should not be used. It would be better if they added their preferred term(s), rather than insist that something WP:RS be removed. ] (]) 19:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ===Which is each editor's preferred word choice?=== | |||
| I'd appreciate it if each editor posted, in a format such as, | |||
| * '''Preferred word choice'''. ] 19:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| The word choice they'd like to see used throughout the article. "Invasion," "conquest," "fight," and "battle" have all been suggested. ] 19:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :"Fall" is another neutral possibility - "X number were killed during the fall of Lydda." <font color="green">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font><font color="pink">]</font></sup></small> 19:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Or "occupation." <font color="green">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font><font color="pink">]</font></sup></small> 20:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| AGK, I have decided to take a break from the article for a while. I have work that needs attention. Also I think that Malcolm fatigue is setting in, and it will be a kindness to give other editors a some space. ] (]) 21:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : Enjoy your work, but do consider sticking around; everybody's involvement is needed, if we're ever going to get anywhere with this article. My regards, ] 21:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hi AGK, could you unprotect the article, please? As the editor who was reverting says he's taking a break, I don't think anyone else will revert "battle" (for or against it), without consensus. I've added a lot of content today at ], which I would like to add to mainspace before it becomes overwhelming. I think the new content should satisfy some of the editors, as it comes from two historians who see things differently from the historians we've been using so far. <font color="green">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font><font color="pink">]</font></sup></small> 06:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::: {{Done}}, but I won't be adverse to re-protecting if more disputes arise. ] 08:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == John Carter, again == | |||
| {{/S|Resolved}} | |||
| Sorry to bother you again about this, but our problems with {{user|John Carter}} and the Macedonia case continue. Apparently he has now been sending insulting e-mails to {{user|Taivo}} disparaging his real-life professional qualifications, followed up by yet more of his aggressive ad hominems at ] and ]. I think it really is about time he is removed from this case. ] ] 16:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : I've sent an email to arbcom-l, asking them to deal with this. ] 21:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ARequests_for_arbitration/Macedonia_2/Evidence&diff=289967826&oldid=289894578. | |||
| :: Rlevse has placed all edits to the case on a professionalism parole; any further instances of bickering, mud-slinging, and whatnot will be met with a block. I intend to enforce this—as do the other clerks and the case arbitrator. | |||
| :: ] 21:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == MEDCOM == | |||
| I recently nominated myself for MEDCOM. I was just wondering if you had any pointers for me.]<span style="color:#00a;">rew </span>]<span style="color:#00a;">mith</span>]] 10:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : The short response is that I don't think you're anywhere near experienced enough at the present, Drew. I've weighed in on your nomination with the following opinion: | |||
| : <blockquote>Membership of the MedCom requires extensive experience with complex enwiki disputes and with tough mediation situations; unfortunately, you don't seem to have that yet. In fact, I'd venture to say that you're quite a bit short of the requisite experience levels. If you are interested in mediation, I would strongly suggest you look at taking a case from the ]; and try also to get some serious editing experience under your belt. Sorry, but I think it's much too soon; try focusing on editing (and perhaps a little light DR work) for now.</blockquote> | |||
| : I hope my advice is useful, and sorry if my opposition has disappointed you—but I think I'd be doing you a disservice if it was any other way. | |||
| : Regards, ] 16:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Long term conflict regarding Falun Gong articles == | |||
| My edits on the Falun Gong related articles are always systematically reverted by a group of overzealous Falun Gong activists. | |||
| I'm really getting tired of these people with clear conflicts of interest patrolling the Falun Gong articles with little regard for the arbcom probation , following me around and trying to stop my right to edit wikipedia. This has been going on for 2 years with no end in sight, and we all have been blocked for edit warring. | |||
| There's further details on the ongoing dispute here .--] (]) 17:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 21:13, 1 January 2025
| This is a Misplaced Pages user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. |
| Please leave a new message. |
Hello, stranger!
Hi, Arcticocean,
No, nope, nah, nyet, it's not going to work. Go back to your former name! You know us long-time editors don't adapt well to changes, especially small ones.
Any way, in case you have indeed transitioned to a new identity, I hope I'll run into you on this project in the future (in a positive way, I mean). Just spend some time working on some subject that brings a smile to your face. And stay away from noticeboards. Take care, Liz 06:00, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- You might want to change the target page for the redirect on User:Arcticocean. Liz 06:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, the archive bot had buried your message away. I've just restored it.
And stay away from noticeboards – was better advice ever given to a Misplaced Pages editor? :) arcticocean ■ 13:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, the archive bot had buried your message away. I've just restored it.
Good article reassessment for 2010 Shanghai fire
2010 Shanghai fire has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Editor experience invitation
Hi Articocean. Have I asked you yet about whether or not you'd be interested in participating here? I see you blank your talk page regularly and I'm worried I'm missing my name in the history even though I checked. 😅 I really hope this isn't a duplicate request. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Welcome back
Hey there! I just wanted to give you a shoutout for nominating this PROMO AUTOBIO for deletion. I’m surprised it’s been hanging around for about five years now and you definitely did the right thing by calling it out! Also, welcome back! I’m glad to see you’re active again and I hope you’ll stick around this time! Thanks for all your good work! — Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the welcome! It's nice to be contributing again. I have been part of the Misplaced Pages community for nearly 20 years, and after so long I was losing my enthusiasm. However, the break has done me some good. arcticocean 10:15, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:WPCGR/Backlog
Template:WPCGR/Backlog has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 10:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for noticing this. We created this template as part of a drive to refresh the WikiProject, but the planned use of the template did not materialise. I have now tagged it for speedy deletion: the deletion is clear-cut and does not necessarily require a TfD. Thanks again, arcticocean ■ 12:13, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
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 Misplaced Pages 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) 00:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Alt account
Hey. Is this actually your alt, or is someone messing around? Thanks, Spicy (talk) 21:49, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- Ah nevermind, I see you created it. Should have checked the logs first. Spicy (talk) 21:51, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- No problem. Better safe than sorry! arcticocean ■ 08:58, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
Happy Birthday!
 | Wishing you all the best on your birthday! From the Misplaced Pages Birthday Committee.--DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 02:44, 27 November 2024 (UTC) |
Thanks, DaniloDaysOfOurLives! arcticocean ■ 17:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Arbitration clerks chart
Template:Arbitration clerks chart has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:21, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't have any memory now of why such a template would have been needed. It was around 15 years ago. Regards, arcticocean ■ 21:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC)