| Revision as of 05:54, 22 February 2014 editAndreJustAndre (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users40,376 edits →Disrupting the mediation: new section← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 23:18, 2 May 2024 edit undoMediaWiki message delivery (talk | contribs)Bots3,133,055 edits →Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C: new sectionTag: MassMessage delivery | ||
| (45 intermediate revisions by 16 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Message | |||
| {{Notice|Deja Messages Ici Bitte. I will generally respond to any comments, queries, calumnies or complaints here. Whatever you do, ]}} | |||
| | bgcolor = #gray | |||
| | border-color = #black | |||
| | color = #black | |||
| | linkcolor = #orange | |||
| }} | |||
| {{TOCleft}} | |||
| -------------- | -------------- | ||
| Line 10: | Line 16: | ||
| #] | #] | ||
| #] | #] | ||
| #]}} | #]}} | ||
| == |
== January 2023 == | ||
| ] Thank you for ] to Misplaced Pages. It appears that you copied or moved text from ] into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Misplaced Pages's content, here or elsewhere, ] does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Misplaced Pages, this is supplied at minimum in an ] at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and ] to the copied page, e.g., <code>copied content from <nowiki>]</nowiki>; see that page's history for attribution</code>. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{tl|copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at ]. Thank you. <!-- Template:uw-copying --> ] ] 14:32, 3 January 2023 (UTC) | |||
| Reading your so-called evidence in the infoboxes case, I have two questions: | |||
| * Do you have a single diff for Andy inserting a controversial infobox in 2013? | |||
| * Do you have any evidence for your implied statement that I "wish to make the use of infoboxes obligatory"? As I matter of fact, I DON'T wish to make them obligatory, I just find them useful. Respectfully, --] (]) 10:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == ] moved to draftspace == | |||
| Hi. You have misread my comment. ] (]) 14:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks for your contributions to ]. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because '''it has no sources'''. | |||
| == Bold? == | |||
| I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while. | |||
| Please see more information at ]. | |||
| Please explain how you read the discussion on Rigoletto as consensus for the side navbox which you properly described as "old". I go for new. Thank you, by the way, for thus supporting my evidence ;) --] (]) 08:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. ] (]) 19:20, 6 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == ] of ] == | |||
| ] | |||
| The article ] has been ] because of the following concern: | |||
| Gerda, not old but BOLD (kühn) is the operative word here. See the guidelines at ]. If you make a bold (new) change to a page and it is reverted, you should engage in a civil and informed discussion to generate consensus for your new proposed edit. Which is precisely what you are doing. ] (]) 15:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| <blockquote>'''Unsourced with unclear claim to notability.'''</blockquote> | |||
| While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ]. | |||
| :I have little time due to RL. I was not bold, I simple put to practice what project opera made available as an option. See also my evidence, especially ]. I hope if it settles in we will not have ] and ] discussions every time. I am ], --] (]) 12:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Bold (B) in this case simply means making a (non-minor) change to an article first without obtaining consensus for it on the talk page. That is a good thing to do, but in the event it creates controversy, then the recommended practise is to revert (R) (to the previous stable version) and discuss (D) so that your change can be restored as a result of consensus. C'est tout! ] (]) 18:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == August 2013 == | |||
| You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ]. | |||
| ] Hello, I'm ]. I have automatically detected that to ] may have broken the ] by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on . | |||
| :List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page: | |||
| *<nowiki>Herr denket an uns'', BWV 196]], about which not much is known, but may be an early wedding cantata</nowiki>{{red|''')'''}}<nowiki>. In other respects, such as its instrumentation, it is an atypical work.</nowiki> | |||
| Thanks, <!-- (-1, 0, 0, 0) --><!-- User:BracketBot/inform -->] (]) 14:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Will be voluntarily stepping back from this topic. | |||
| ==I will be voluntarily stepping back== | |||
| Eusebeus - No need for a topic ban. I have made my point and will be voluntarily stepping back from this topic. - ] (]) 14:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> ] (]) 19:29, 6 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == Stepping back == | |||
| == ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message == | |||
| You reverted infoboxes for three symphonies. I will not debate #6 and #7. (In case you didn't notice, I left the project and will cause you no more trouble.) For #8 however, I am the principal contributor, and even the proposed arbcom remedy will allow me to add an infobox to my creations. It was approved for DYK with the infobox. Please compare ] (infobox since 2007), and kindly restore it. --] (]) 15:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| <div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> | |||
| *I will restore it. I do have some major issues with adding in a bunch of program-note driven content, but I will take that up at the talk page in due course and it can be determined how best to drive good content, backed by solid, reliable sources to the article. There is no shortage of academic work on the 8th and I think we can do better than some impressionistically-touched up cribs from Grove. Cheers, ] (]) 17:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| <div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em; flex: 1 0 40px; max-width: 100px">]</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|2023|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. | |||
| ::Thank you, --] (]) 21:51, 2 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| If you wish to participate in the 2023 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>] (]) 00:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)</small> | |||
| As expressed above, I am stepping back from new debates.The articles on Bach's cantatas however, some of which only don't have an infobox because I couldn't handle them all in a row, are a different topic. Did you follow the discussion on the PD talk? ]: I am the only author who is still active, the template has the blessings of Kleinzach, Nikkimaria and Voceditenore, most Bach cantatas have an infobox already (and I would like to complete the others), all Bach cantatas in French and all in Norsk have one, all existing in German (not complete yet) have one, which was introduced recently and copies our model (I confess that I am proud of that). Who is served by this cantata not having one? Please consider to restore it. If you have problems with certain parameters, let's discuss them. Look at the discussion of GA ] (GA review by Smerus with whom I liked to work and hope to do again) for an example. --] (]) 14:39, 4 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :No it doesn't. ] (]) 01:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| </div> | |||
| :Ditto. It is not correct to suggest that this box has my "blessing". I never edit in this area and have no opinion one way or another on its general usefulness or appropriateness. I simply participated in the discussion at ] to point out ways to make it less confusing, misleading, and inconsistent given that it was already being used in a number of articles. Having said that, given ], you might as well go for consistency. ] (]) 06:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| </div> | |||
| Dear ], is hardly stepping back. And this "Oh but I am principal contributor it it is allowed to have a box" is an unhelpful wikilawyering response. Feel free to revert, but after you have done so I would suggest some reflection. Now that you have helped drive away Smerus, one of our most respected and diligent collaborators, perhaps the time has come to make some amends, no? First, you might consider buying Smerus' book, if you haven't already. He was working on it during his years editing Misplaced Pages and would be a fitting tribute to his extensive contributions here. (I have done so.) Second, why not refocus on actual article quality, since you are good at that. You saw, for instance, the woeful state of the BWV 71 article. You saw that it didn't even quote Dürr (let alone the other issues), instead content with stealing from a few gussied up liner notes and web references. Yet despite this, you decided that it would bring "quality" to the article by sticking a box on it. Really? I think quality means sourcing some of these pages with reference to proper, authoritative works. (The same can be said for Dvorak 8. You appear to have rummaged through a couple of subpar performance notes to crib some unrigorous descriptive stuff to then throw a box on the page. Oof.) Third, when more than half your contributions start to veer away from mainspace into other stuff, the chances of becoming irreversibly sucked into the wikidramas increases. (I learned this the hard way, and perhaps the same applies to you. I am sympathetic.) It is usually a good signal to regroup, take stock and ask some questions about priorities; that might be worth considering. Fourth, why don't we plan to revisit the box issue in a few months, when this whole things has subsided. Hopefully you will be back with the projects by then, and the air will have cleared. We can work together via CM to develop a nice, simple, uncomplicated compositional box that can be used for classical articles uniformly. I don't object to these things ''per se''. But I do feel that the best way to proceed is via a centralised discussion that draws from the ample collegiality that we have at CM in order to promote optimal solutions well-fitted to the sum of the CM ecosystem. Instead, I see a worrying development from this whole debacle that is promoting a self-defeating ownership: "This is my article it gets to have a box". When someone (maybe me) goes back to Dvorak 8 for cleanup to replace the unrigorous stuff that's there now, does that mean the box is removed because someone else now "owns" that article? Is that the kind of environment we want to advance? Surely not. If you were to go box up 71, would you want me to say, "sorry but this is my article now and I say it doesn't get one..." That is a woeful state of affairs. So consider my suggestion. A few months, a reasoned, centralised discussion - I think it is a salutary way to proceed. Finally, let me say this. Please remember that this whole Seifenoper is not about boxes, it is about engagement, productive or otherwise, since editors who cannot engage productively with others can provoke very unhappy consequences (such as the departure of longstanding and valued editors). Es ist selbstverständlich: you don't want to be that editor, neither do I. So let's not. Just some thoughts. ] (]) 14:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2023/Coordination/MM/01&oldid=1187131902 --> | |||
| :Thanks for your thoughts. A few replies, in the order you mentioned ideas: | |||
| :* The link takes my to 16 July? | |||
| :* I am not the "principal" author as much as the only one still around. | |||
| :* I will not revert ;) | |||
| :* I did not help to "drive away" Smerus. (Actually, I don't think anybody wanted to drive him away.) I told him of my high respect in the case phase ("@Smerus: I have high respect for you as an editor, author of FA Richard Wagner, and I thank you for a GA review of my BWV 103 (with an infobox)." 9 July) and refused to supply evidence against him (and anybody else) in the decicion phase even when asked ("I have intentionally not supplied any evidence against (!) any editor, many of whom I respect, and still don't want to do that. (Was it a mistake? I am interested in understanding, not "remedies".)" 15:36, 23 August). You may also want to go over my ] and talk, looking for his name. Bitter irony: You will find me telling him that I debated with myself if I could reasonably support this project any longer. | |||
| :* I would love to return to more "mainspace", - doing my weekly update for the Bach cantatas of the upcoming Sunday was my approach back to normality (it's not only infobox, also wording, references and language templates. I planned to move on to more and better sources starting next year.) | |||
| :* You are right about the quality of both BWV 71 and the Eighth, - a matter of lack of time. (I have no time right now but take it, because your thoughts deserve it.) | |||
| :* When I add a box I want to supply a random reader information of time and place of an article at a glance, more than anything else. I see that as added quality. | |||
| :* Therefore I would like to add a box to the cantatas ] and ] now, premieres 17 and 5 September, the liturgical Sunday coming up. How and whom would it hurt? | |||
| :* I don't own any article, but learned that argument from the opposers ;) - I call it "responsible for the article". | |||
| :* Let's not speak of wikidrama and my last night, or even the day when I heard the pieces on top of my talk. | |||
| :* Thank you for the invitation back to CM - I definitely didn't feel welcome anymore, this helps on a better way. --] (]) 15:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C == | |||
| == ] == | |||
| <section begin="announcement-content" /> | |||
| Given I have loads of these in my garden, I have been inclined to buff the article. Just tidying up the taxonomic history and have come across this article in German - see - it is an identification key - I am trying to decipher how it distinguishes ''L. scelio'' and ''L. ancorifer'' on that page....any light shed much appreciated. Cheers, ] (] '''·''' ]) 04:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :''] '' | |||
| Dear Wikimedian, | |||
| == ''When God Writes Your Love Story'' == | |||
| You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process. | |||
| Hi Eusebeus, | |||
| This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the ] to learn more about voting and voter eligibility. | |||
| Because you have been involved in discussions surrounding the '']'' article, I thought that you should be notified of ]. Any constructive comments you would be willing to provide there would be greatly appreciated. | |||
| ] (]) 19:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Removing Neutrality dispute tags noted == | |||
| The purpose of the "neutrality tag" or "NPOV tag" is to indicate that not all editors agree the article is neutral. When you unilaterally remove the tag, claiming the article is neutral because YOU think so, even though not all other editors do, it can be VERY problematic. Kindly stop doing this. You are basically saying that anyone who disagrees with your POV, therefore has no standing as a wikipedia editor to raise issues about the article's lack of neutrality. The NPOV policy was the most important thing Jimbo set out in the beginning to ensure all sides get heard in any controversy, and there are many of us who are determined to keep it that way, not have a one-sided encyclopedia. ] /]/ 13:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :''sigh''. ], you're going to end up at arbcom and if you're lucky (and contrite) it will just be a topic ban. ] (]) 14:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::You are threatening me, but I have done nothin wrong, and have a clean conscience. I stand by what I have said. Your threat is also noted. ] /]/ 14:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::That you see my comment as a threat pretty much sums up why you're bound for arbcom one of these days. ] (]) 08:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::What does the fact that you don't see your comment as threatening say about you? ] /]/ 12:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == happy holiday season.... == | |||
| {| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" | |||
| |rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ] | |||
| |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''Cheers, pina coladas all round!''' | |||
| |- | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Damn need a few of these after a frenetic year and Xmas. Hope yours is a good one....Cheers, ] (] '''·''' ]) 09:52, 25 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| Back at ya Cas! ] (]) 22:13, 25 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ==] edit from 2010== | |||
| Hi Eusebeus, in you added a comment saying that the estimate of 80% from land-based sources and 20% from ships was "derived from on an unsubstantiated estimate", with a footnote saying "See Moore 2004". But there is no 2004 piece from anyone named Moore in the references, and if you mean Charles J. Moore, lists only one paper from 2004, , which doesn't seem to mention this estimate. So, do you remember what you were referencing there? Looking back further in the revision history, the original source for the 80/20 claim seems to be , which quotes Moore saying "The figure we use is 80 percent land-based, 20 percent from ships at sea". ] (]) 21:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Also, do you remember if you found a reliable source that said the estimate was unsubstantiated, or was this your own judgment because the source you saw didn't cite any scientific research? In general it's not a good idea to claim something is "unsubstantiated" in an article itself unless there is a source that says this specifically, if the current source for a claim in an article just doesn't seem good enough this can be brought up on the talk page or by adding an inline template like one of the ones at ] (the ] template would probably be the best choice in a case like this). Looking around a bit more, I think I've found a better source for the 80/20 claim than the NPR article originally used, which says on p. 13 that "The data from Ocean Conservancy’s International Coastal Cleanup Day indicate that somewhere between 60-80% of marine debris starts out on land; this is determined based on the type of debris and its likely original use." On the other hand, by says " Despite this there are quite widespread claims in the media that 80% of plastic in the ocean originates on land (see, for example, Grant2009), but these claims appear to be without sound foundation (see appendix)." So, I think it would be best to note some reliable sources that give the 60-80% figure but also take note of any scientific sources that say it's uncertain--what do you think? ] (]) 22:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sounds you like you have this well in hand. I am essentially retired, so I leave it up to your good judgment. ] (]) 18:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Stepping back yet again == | |||
| {{u|Ret.Prof}} has recently indicted he is voluntarily ], yet again, from active editing. This time he apparently intends to create alternative articles in his user space. How do you wish to proceed? Please respond here. ] (]) 17:36, 2 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I have decided to recuse myself indefinitely from any further involvement in editing or commenting on the ] and related article pages per my talk page notice. However, I still reserve the privilege of commenting on public pages (ANI, noticeboards, arbitration, etc.) should the need arise. Therefore, my original question is still relevant. ] (]) 19:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::My proposed compromise is a good faith effort to end our edit war and avoid arbitration! (See my talk page) I would be most interested in your response. Cheers - ] (]) 19:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::George has taken the matter to ], so the die is cast. Please weigh in there. ] (]) 02:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::It is too bad we could not work out a compromise. Cheers - ] (]) 05:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Formal mediation has been requested == | |||
| {{Ivmbox | |||
| | <!---MedComBot-Do-not-remove-this-line-Notified-Hebrew Gospel of Matthew--->The ] has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Hebrew Gospel of Matthew". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. ] is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the ], the ], and the ], '''please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate.''' Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 16 February 2014. | |||
| Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.<br> | |||
| <small>Message delivered by ] (]) on ] of the Mediation Committee. 01:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)</small> | |||
| }} | |||
| == Request for mediation accepted == | |||
| {{Ivmbox | |||
| | The ] of the dispute concerning Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, in which you were listed as a party, '''has been accepted''' by the ]. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, ], so please {{plainlinks|1={{fullurl:Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Hebrew Gospel of Matthew|action=watch}}|2=add}} this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its ]. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the ]. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal ]. | |||
| As mediation proceedings begin, be aware that formal mediation can only be successful if every participant approaches discussion in a professional and civil way, and is completely prepared to compromise. Please ] if anything is unclear. | |||
| For the Mediation Committee, ] (]) 02:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC)<br> | |||
| <small>(Delivered by ], ] the Mediation Committee.)</small> | |||
| }} | |||
| I think they are waiting for us as last 2. ] (]) 09:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please ]. | |||
| :Hi Eusebeus, would you be able to signify your agreement (or not) to this mediation, by signing ? ] (]) 18:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well. | |||
| == February 2014 == | |||
| DTTR | |||
| On behalf of the UCoC project team,<section end="announcement-content" /> | |||
| == Disrupting the mediation == | |||
| ] 23:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Your comments are disruptive. Please stop re-adding your massive text wall. You are disrupting progress and it is out of order. ''']'''] 05:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:RamzyM (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Coordinating_Committee/Election/2024/Previous_voters_list&oldid=26721206 --> | |||
Latest revision as of 23:18, 2 May 2024
| Please leave a new message. |
 Archives |
January 2023
Thank you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages. It appears that you copied or moved text from Jean Jullien into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Misplaced Pages's content, here or elsewhere, Misplaced Pages's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Misplaced Pages, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from ]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Misplaced Pages:Copying within Misplaced Pages. Thank you. /wiae /tlk 14:32, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung moved to draftspace
Thanks for your contributions to Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.
Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. FuzzyMagma (talk) 19:20, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of Christian Friedrich Michaelis (philosopher)
The article Christian Friedrich Michaelis (philosopher) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Unsourced with unclear claim to notability.
While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:29, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
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 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 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) 00:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C
- You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.
Dear Wikimedian,
You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.
This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.
The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.
Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.
On behalf of the UCoC project team,