Hello, you have removed the link to Ross Ulbricht's Twitter which I have added. Can you explain it a bit more why you have removed it ? Emil Engler ( talk) 12:49, 22 February 2019 (UTC) reply

I believe we don't generally link to Twitter accounts in the infobox or external links section, per WP:ELNO. Normally it would be ok to include a link to one "official website" owned by the article subject. I believe he has a website that qualifies as that, and that it would be ok to include it as an external link. -- Tataral ( talk) 00:09, 24 February 2019 (UTC) reply

	Wonderful debater award
	Wonderful debate sorry if I sounded rude. I think the majority feel the way you do. Moxy ( talk) 21:38, 7 March 2019 (UTC) reply

Salut Tataral, have just seen your proposal on the restructure of the Jackson article. I'd suggest listing all subsections under Life and Career and Artistry rather than just saying there are 10 and 5 sub-sections under each. The way it's presented now could give the appearance that the Allegations section would get more prominence in the article than in actuality. Cheers. Oska ( talk) 23:52, 7 March 2019 (UTC) reply

I see your point. I'll do that. -- Tataral ( talk) 20:44, 8 March 2019 (UTC) reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Brexit (cat) 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/Brexit (cat) 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. Fram ( talk) 10:26, 19 March 2019 (UTC) reply

Could I ask for you to submit a vote on the Talk page please? There are some issues today. Regards, Hammelsmith ( talk) 20:05, 27 June 2019 (UTC) reply

I'm so so sorry to bother you again, but if you could offer Partytemple & I an opinion to launch from, it would help our stalemate. Cheers & Regards, Hammelsmith ( talk) 01:28, 28 June 2019 (UTC) reply

I haven't paid attention to the Jackson articles lately, so I'm not sure I'm going to involve myself in any debates there right now. -- Tataral ( talk) 12:48, 28 June 2019 (UTC) reply

I have some pretty serious concerns about your spate of recent edits to the anti-fascism article set. Frankly these massive additions seem an awful lot like an attempt to coatrack an article series of significant current relevance to modern politics into an airing of grievances over something that happened in a country that no longer exists, long ago. There's also issues of WP:DUE and WP:WEASEL with these edits - which your refusal to listen at our point of first contact, Antifa (United States) did little to dispel.

I would very much like to caution you to go to article talk, propose your changes, make your case, and then let other people (and certainly not just myself) have a say before attempting to systematically rewrite the history of resistance to fascism. Simonm223 ( talk) 13:39, 31 July 2019 (UTC) reply

I caution you against massive blanking/deletion of sourced content that you don't like. If you have any issues with any of the content you need to bring it up specifically on the talk page and state your reason there instead of blanking content. Your previous revert-warring to reintroduce an outdated source instead of a better one is one example of unacceptable behaviour. So far your only activity in connection with the article on post WWII-Antifa movements has been revert-warring withour even familiarising yourself with the content and article history -- Tataral ( talk) 14:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC) reply

You were very WP:BOLD. Per WP:BRD having identified multiple problems with your bold edits, I reverted them and started a discussion. The issue with regard to the German source was because I didn't notice that the same words had a different date on them. As I mentioned at the time. Now. Discuss your edits and seek consensus. Because this spree isn't good practice. Simonm223 ( talk) 14:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC) reply

No, you, an editor with no history of contributing to the article in a constructive manner, do not hold a veto over all my edits, to a short article that is at a very undeveloped stage. If you have any objection to any specific content you need to state your reason on the talk page, and we can talk. -- Tataral ( talk) 14:19, 31 July 2019 (UTC) reply

I think you can safely assume that if an article touches on antifascism I've at least been watching it. And my not having been active on it for a while doesn't mean I can't revert an obviously WP:NPOV violating major revision. So again, simply, discuss your edits on article talk and get a diversity of opinions. Simonm223 ( talk) 14:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Your recent editing history at Antifaschistische Aktion‎; shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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. Doug Weller talk 14:22, 31 July 2019 (UTC) reply

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. You need to review WP:BRD your edits were reverted and discussions set up at talk. Go to talk and discuss rather than edit warring. Simonm223 ( talk) 14:23, 31 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Thanks for creating Antifa (Germany).

User:Lefcentreright while reviewing this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:

Wow! Keep up the good work!

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Lefcentreright}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Lefcentreright ( talk) 17:34, 31 July 2019 (UTC) reply

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) 00:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC) reply

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Here's your friendly annual DS alert refresh for the AP2 topic area, roughly 28 months overdue. Enjoy! ― Mandruss  ☎ 23:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Hello. I'm 直蔵 from Japan. In your edit of Bernie Sanders citing The Times of Israel, there is a word "dramatically" in the citation. However, when I look into the source now, there is no word in his remark. Can you check by yourself and if confirmed, remove the word please? Or, if there is another source to have the word, please add it as well. I have no right to edit on the page. The citation is now moved into "Foreign relations" in the same section. Thank you. -- 直蔵 ( talk) 08:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC) reply

An editor added another source to confirm the word. The problem has been solved. -- 直蔵 ( talk) 13:54, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply

by moving your comments out of a discussion, leaving Rupert Loup's replies to you confusing. See WP:TALK#REPLIED. Doing this was disruptive and confused me completely until I looked at the edit history. Please don't do it again, consider this an only warning on this issue. Doug Weller talk 12:19, 14 June 2020 (UTC) reply

No I didn't, I left them in the original section where the discussion was started, and where they belong, not in some year-old unrelated section on a different text that is long gone. I moved the entire discussion to the most recent section dealing with the current text, but he edit-warred because he objected to his comments being moved, so only then I moved my comments only to the correct section because I didn't feel inclined to edit-war with him over his comments. If his replies look meaningless, it's entirely his own fault, and he is free to comment in the section that is actually dealing with the current article at any time. Bring it up with him. -- Tataral ( talk) 13:11, 14 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Hello Tataral, I am aware that you may very well be immersed into your own current wiki-concerns, but I would really appreciate if you could spare few minutes of your time to release that one article with Vladan's Petković interview from Norwegian paper, which you uploaded on Scribid ( article - link to your upload), from their "Premium Content policy", so that article can be read in full without need for upload-for-download requirement, which is condition for both download and full availability for reading. At this moment only portion of the document is available for reading, namely the first page, while the second page isn't, unless reader contribute/upload five(!) documents himself, which is horribly annoying, but more importantly could be used as an argument against interview's usage as a source in Wikipedia article, where you intended to be used in the first place ( Boris Malagurski). This shouldn't take you too much time, you just need to open your Scribid "Account Settings" and scroll down, you will see section "Document Upload Settings" at the very bottom with "Reader Access" setting where you need to place button to "on" position (it gets blue-green). This should make that interview fully available for reading, and nobody could reject it for any reasons if we decide to use it as a source for reference. Thanks, in any case.-- ౪ Santa ౪ ^99° 21:17, 27 June 2020 (UTC) reply

I don't have access to that account with Petković' article any longer. I got tired of the Malagurski article which is clearly a promotional autobiography where any attempt to balance the article is immediately reverted. -- Tataral ( talk) 23:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Thanks anyway - I am sorry, I haven't got an alert on your reply here at all, so I couldn't thank you earlier, and yes, I understand exactly what you are talking about, but we will sort it out that issue now, sooner rather than later, anyway. Stay safe and take care.-- ౪ Santa ౪ ^99° 03:46, 9 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Greetings Tataral, The recent revisions you made to the pages for The TerraMar Project and Ghislaine Maxwell state that Epstein and Maxwell founded Terra Mar, not just Maxwell. This statement may well be true but it concerns me that it is currently unsupported in each of the articles, absent a citation to a reliable source or sources. Can you kindly clarify where this content has come from by adding a citation (or citations) after the statements you added to each lede? Best Regards, Cedar777 ( talk) 05:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply

I added something in the article "Julia Shaw" and on the discussion page. You might be interested. Mr. bobby ( talk) 16:34, 18 October 2020 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Hey Tataral! :) Please note that I have answered you on the Chancellor of Germany-talk page, in order to provide evidence that counting office-holders, starting with Konrad Adenauer, is, at least to some extent, common practice for German chancellors in Germany. We can still discuss how common this must be for it to appear in Wikipedia, but I honestly do not know how exactly to draw the line from a methodological point of view. We can also philosophize about the extent to which this is a result of the Americanization of German politics - if your assertion is correct that something like this is not common in other European countries (I wouldn't be so sure about that either, but I'll leave that aside here). But I don't think that would be very relevant to the question itself. I am looking forward to read from you - stay healthy! ;) Alektor89 ( talk) 19:37, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Why do you keep changing Miriam Adelson's birthplace to Israel when the country didn't exist when she was born? See Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Country of birth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.222.122.60 ( talk) 12:41, 17 January 2021 (UTC) reply

I haven't made any changes to her birthplace. That was done by someone else. -- Tataral ( talk) 18:59, 19 January 2021 (UTC) reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jim Crow caucus 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/Jim Crow caucus 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.

HaeB ( talk) 07:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Hello :) I am writing my MA dissertation on Wikipedia Wars and the Israel-Palestine conflict, and I noticed that you have contributed to those pages. My dissertation will look at the process of collaborative knowledge production on the Israel-Palestine conflict, and the effect it has on bias in the articles. This will involve understanding the profiles and motivations of editors, contention/controversy and dispute resolution in the talk pages, and bias in the final article.

For more information, you can check out my meta-wiki research page or my user page, where I will be posting my findings when I am done.

I would greatly appreciate if you could take 5 minutes to fill out this quick survey before 8 August 2021.

Participation in this survey is entirely voluntary and anonymous. There are no foreseeable risks nor benefits to you associated with this project.

Thanks so much,

Sarah Sanbar

Sarabnas ^{I'm researching Wikipedia} _Questions? 11:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Hi Tataral, I saw your comment regarding the focus of this article. I entirely agree. Could you check it out, It tried to clean it up a bit, removed the items not related to thatn historical field of study. -- Nug ( talk) 17:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC) reply

I'm not quite happy with that article and I believe it requires a lot of work, but I'm probably going to be too busy with Putin to look into that article again right now. -- Tataral ( talk) 13:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC) reply

so, please do not edit your comments once someone has responded to you - thanks ... -HammerFilmFan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.36.47 ( talk) 15:03, 3 March 2022 (UTC) reply

I've been trying to find cites for the unsourced older branches of the family tree you created on Trump family in November 2016, starting with this this edit. (The page was recently merged into Family of Donald Trump.) Trump biographer Gwenda Blair mentions a Hans Drumpft moving to Kallstadt in 1608 and a John Philip Trump established as a wine grower at the end of the 17th century (without actually saying that they were Trump's ancestors) but then skips to the 19th century and Trump's great-grandfather Johannes Christian. Where did you find the info? Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 14:49, 23 May 2022 (UTC) reply

This is more than five years ago, so I don't really remember that much about that material. -- Tataral ( talk) 23:38, 21 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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) 00:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sarah Bils 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/Sarah Bils 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.

Mz7 ( talk) 21:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC) reply

You have recently made edits related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans. This is a standard message to inform you that Eastern Europe or the Balkans is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. For a summary of difference between the former and new system, see WP:CTVSDS. Mellk ( talk) 04:26, 24 April 2023 (UTC) reply

You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. For a summary of difference between the former and new system, see WP:CTVSDS. Mellk ( talk) 04:26, 24 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi, I didn’t want to revert your edits, as I know they are in good faith. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but my understanding is you include the birth name when the person gained the notability under that name, in other words I was looking at MOS:GENDERID, but I don’t know if MOS:DEADNAME applies? Equine-man ( talk) 22:00, 24 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi! I'd like to nominate Angela Merkel for consideration as a Good Article, and I'm reaching out to you as you are one of its most significant contributors. I have fixed some issues with that article, and I expanded it a little in some places, but I still feel that this is the right way to go per WP:GAN/I#N1.

Please let me know what you think of this. I'm also reaching out to some other top contributors, but one of them has been banned, and another one hasn't been active since 2018. Actualcpscm ( talk) 20:08, 3 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Precious

Six years!

-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:28, 3 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Says who? Says WP:RECENTISM and WP:REDUNDANTFORK. I don't see any reason to create an article on the mugshot itself just yet. LilianaUwU ^{( talk / contributions)} 01:31, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

You can start a debate or nominate it for deletion. You cannot unilaterally decide that we are not going to have this article. This was just described as the most important and iconic photograph taken of any president on CNN and has been the subject of extensive commentary even for months before it was taken. -- Tataral ( talk) 01:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Hello, Tataral, and welcome to Wikipedia. I edit here too, under the username Red-tailed hawk, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Mug shot of Donald Trump, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mug shot of Donald Trump.

You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Red-tailed hawk}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

— Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 02:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

You may want to know that on our project it is considered rude to say "welcome to Wikipedia" to Wikipedians with 13 years of experience and a five-digit edit count, especially for someone with far less experience. -- Tataral ( talk) 02:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

The page curation tool appears to do that automatically when leaving AfD notices. My apologies on that; I'll try to raise a flag to see if that language can get tweaked in the default. — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 03:07, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

	The capybara!
	I feel you deserve something for starting the mug shot article. We'll see what happens to it. Happy editing! Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 18:39, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{ Ctopics/aware}} template.

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{ Ctopics/aware}} template.

Springee ( talk) 13:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply