User talk:Lpgeffen

Please add your comments at the bottom of the page

This will help to keep things in chronological order. -- Paul

- СПУТНИК^{ССС Р} 02:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I read your (now deleted) comments on the Sviatoslav Richter Talk page and I have a question: why did you decide not to leave that text on the page? (Paul 23:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC))"

-First of all, I really appreciate the fact that you said something to me. Hmmm, well I took it off for a variety of reasons. First of all, I really like Richter alot and I feel he should be entitled to some amount of privacy about his sexuality - even if there is potentially support for the position that he was homosexual. Secondly, broadly speaking - I think people don't seem understanding of other people's feelings on most matters. It takes a remarkable mind that can really put his or her imagination inside someone else's mind and really try and think as they think, and see them for what they are. While I am not suggesting you or the others there are not this sort of person - I did find it unlikely that most people would welcome my feelings on the matter, especially given the hostility to the ideas I put forth. I really admire Richter and aside from Claudio Arrau, he is one of my favorite pianists (I think I admire Arrau slightly more). I did find some sources that suggest Richter was gay, and since you asked, I will show them to you:

1) http://www.salon.com/ent/music/feature/1999/01/05feature.html

2) Karlinsky, Simon. "Russia's Gay Literature and Culture: The Impact of the October Revolution." Hidden from History. Reclaiming the Gay and Lesbian Past. Martin Bauml Duberman, Martha Vicinus, and George Chauncey, Jr., eds. New York: New American Library, 1989: 348-364

I would agree none of these sources are necessarily demonstrative "proof" of Richter's potential homosexuality. The first source states he was homosexual because it was claimed by Richter's "friends (apparently a substantial amount of them)." While this is certainly not proof, it shouldn't necessarily be thrown out of consideration either. The second source has several passages where it asserts Richter's homosexuality - although I only read clips of it from the internet and am interested to see what the full text would say, and how exactly it backs up its contentions. Karlinsky would have had to make sure he backed up his sources very well in order for the claims in his book to be valid. He does have several historical claims that do seem to be supported though, like mentioning laws that banned homosexuality in Soviet Russia at the time - so at the very least some of the text seemed to be well supported. The other evidence I had was gossip from people who knew friends of Richter (there was lots of it, btw). Gossip is not demonstrable proof and is vaguely circumstancial at best and should not be taken seriously in Wikipedia whatsoever - so I don't mind if you discard those things that I've heard. Additionally, I don't know how much you like to "read between the lines" but Richter did seem to talk oddly positively about several male figures in the movie The Enigma (he described Oistrakh as "exquisite," Prokofiev as "healthy"), and his partner Nina Dorliac wasn't exactly the most attractive woman either (she suffered from baldness). While I don't want to say that this is evidence Richter was gay, it certainly doesn't help add to the perception that he was straight - not to sound like a jerk or anything.

Lastly, I have had experiences where people thought I was gay when I am not, so I do know the feeling of people saying things about you that are untrue. In this sense, I felt guilty posting any info that Richter was gay - although this is slightly different given that Richter might actually have been gay. I hope you understand my position a bit better and realize that I'm not trying to vandalize wikipedia or be a jerk at all. I just wanted to add what I thought might have been true about Richter (Jan 5, '07, 7:04 PM Eastern).

Thank you for your comments. I don't think there's anything wrong with discussion or speculation about the sexuality of a public figure, but that belongs here on a talk page, not in the main article. Paul 00:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I saw your edit on the Richter article and I thought I'd say hello :) There's not many of us working on articles on classical pianists, so you're very welcome. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask on my talk page :) --Missmarple 14:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lpgeffen! It's me again :) I would like you to know about this: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 February 11. I do feel that the 'Classical pianists' category works just perfect right now and would like to keep it just as it is now. Vote if you wish :) --Missmarple 11:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will never tell of Special:Newpages! Oops. Choess 03:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've speedy tagged Gratchenfleiss. You might also be interested in Hieronymous Gratchenfleiss and Funerary Violin from the same author, both of which I've just tagged as "proposed for deletion". Tonywalton  | Talk 19:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the rationale for proposed deletion on either of the ones I've tagged you'll see that I cannot find any references to any of the people mentioned in the articles (except for Menuhin, Beethoven and so on) at all. Nor anything on "Funerary Violin" or the alleged "Guild of Funerary Violinists" Nor anything on the "Hildesheim Trunk", which, if it was discovered as recently as 1983 I'd have expected to be Googlable somewhere! I tagged Hieronymous Gratchenfleiss as a hoax and invited the author to come up with some sources; no response. I reckon they're a hoax; possibly copyvio (there's something about those dense blocks of text that make them look like a cut 'n' paste job from somewhere, though I can't find any of it on Google). Speedy or prod seems to make little difference at the moment, with the size of the backlog on CAT:CSD! Tonywalton  | Talk 20:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's a hoax. Paul 20:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Tonywalton  | Talk 20:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

a-HA! I've tracked down the elusive Guild. [1]. And guess who authored al this stuff? Rohan Kriwaczek, that's who. Strangest self-promotion I've seen in a while! Tonywalton  | Talk 21:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be on the safe side, I'll do some research and check what I find on his web site. It looks like fiction, but you never know. Paul

I would suggest that this:

The Funerary Notebooks of Herr Gratchenfleiss – 15 Pieces. A series of 15 short pieces, each exploring a different aspect of our relationship with mortality. Composed in the guise of a forgotten composer who was the pinnacle of the great lost tradition of Funerary Violin. Comes with an accompanying historical essay, as all the works in this project do.

at http://www.rohan-k.co.uk/scores.html (my emphasis added) is tantamount to an admission that it's a complete fiction. It all sounds interesting, though — think I'll listen to some of his samples. Tonywalton  | Talk 22:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.iussa.org/index.php?page=email (of all places) is the only place on Google that "Funerary Violin" turns up (apart from what looks like some sort of a stoplist or spam filter breaker). That page contains the following:

I am a composer and writer and am currently working on a semifictional book entitled "An Incomplete History of the Art of Funerary Violin"

"Semi" fictional? Hmmm. This is the book featured at http://www.rohan-k.co.uk/books.html

I used http://dogpile.com to come up with the author's website, by the way. Tonywalton  | Talk 22:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[2] Well spotted! Sdedeo (tips) 03:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thought you might like to know that the front cover is now being used on this article. Also Sparks has a peer review and it is also up for good article nomination--KaptKos 09:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The next step is to take it to AfD. Let me know if you'd like help. --Fang Aili ^talk 05:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like the way you label new pages when called for as: {{Unreferenced|piece of crap}} Thanks! Paul 03:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. You may not have noticed that I did also wikify and clean-up that article; I didn't just put my little humour there and walk away. Mrmoocow 03:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind, then, when I use the same tag and then just walk away. I could be more original. Paul 03:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no, feel free to use it. I wasn't sure if you were complimenting me or subtly accusing me of vandalism. Cheers! Mrmoocow 03:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems odd to me that you've been marking deletion requests as minor edits.[3][4]. Could you at least use edit summaries to make the page history make sense? NickelShoe (Talk) 18:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can do that. I'd prefer to keep the speedy delete requests speedy (for me) but not if it's confusing (for you). Paul 18:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is an epic which deserves its place on Wikipedia, search it on Youtube for information on it.

You may be right. Paul 22:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

err i've actually forgotten why this is here... on this page i mean, i know i put it on wiki, but i didnt think it was here. Ferretstu

You have added a CSD template and marked it as a minor edit. When you get a chance, please review Help:Minor edit. When submitting a substantial change it can be considered bad form to mark it as minor. Thanks for your consideration. Navou ^banter 02:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sidenote - A deletion request might do better with an edit summery, regards, Navou ^banter 02:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to remember to include edit summaries for all my db tags. Paul 02:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC) AND I have changed my default to mark my edits major, not minor! That addresses the other half of your concern. Paul 02:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why you tagged all those user talk pages as needing speedy deletion? {{db-talk}} does not apply to user talk pages. Metros232 01:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on your talk page Please advise as to correct protocol/usage. Paul 02:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't really block Blocked, just redirected it to Block as the most obvious redirect. I'll watch it for a few days to see if it gets reverted. --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 01:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, and that's what I was referring to. It was a kind of finesse. Paul 01:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you removed the speedy tag from this page, so I'll ask you reconsider. I added a link to argan on the page and it seems to me that, given what argan means, the definition is suspect. It's an African plant and therefore the explanation of the source of the phrase makes very little sense. It's your call, but I think the whole thing is an invention. Paul 03:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the speedy tag because it doesn't seem to fit the speedy criteria. A hoax is not speediable. —Mets501 (talk) 04:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my note on User talk:Mets501. If you take this to AfD, which you should, please let me know. Newyorkbrad 19:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

replied to you on Mets501's page and have not decided to pursue it further Paul 19:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not Delete Jack555 Under the rules since I have said "The subject of the article is notable" I don't believe you can speed delete it. If you have a problem with my page please help me to meet your criteria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack555a (talk • contribs)

Correct. I am not an admin and I can't delete a page. Paul

I removed your report from WP:AIV. As it wasn't an individual vandal report. Please go to WP:RFPP or WP:AN/I. --Wildnox(talk) 01:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also please use the standard format on WP:AIV. " Please report with the following format (copy and fill in) at the bottom of the list:

Anon:

• {{IPvandal|username}} optional brief reason for listing (keep it short) -- ~~~~

Registered:

• {{vandal|username}} optional brief reason for listing (keep it short) -- ~~~~
• {{userlinks|username}} optional brief reason for listing (keep it short) -- ~~~~"--Wildnox(talk) 01:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Got it. Thanks. Paul

Hm... should be fixed, now. If they do any more editing, it'll only be to their talk page, unless they manage to register another sock and evade any autoblocks coming their way. We'll see. Luna Santin 04:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• thanks. this one spent some time on my user page. I'll be watching. Paul 04:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators can view deleted edits at a given page -- the user's behavior seems similar to the socks we were dealing with, previously, so I've gone ahead and blocked the new account, and protected the page against further editing. Luna Santin 00:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hello paul. i am Sevrugi Adam Linethzia from the Frankfurt am Main suburbs of Frankfurt in Germany. I am a pilot for Lufthansa Airlines. We should be having many fun and exciting times on wikipedia.

FYI, see: Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-01-25_History_of_IBM. Trevor Hanson 00:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That is a helpful move that I did not know enough to make. In fact I still don't know what to do next and so will do nothing for a while. Paul 01:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I resent that you labeled my edits as vandalism. Did you even look at my edits and edit summaries ? One of your reversions put back in a spelling error and a tourism promotion for the town of Whistler. All of the information that I did delete was excessive detail that does not have much to do with the subject of the article. Please be more respectful and considerate of my contributions. I have as much right to contribute to Wikipedia as you do. Thank You. -- 66.183.66.239 00:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I look for deletion of large blocks by anonymous users. I have no objection to your edits, but please explain what you are doing in the Talk page for the article. That allows others to understand why you have made such drastic changes. Paul 00:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I understand, I think - I thought the edit summaries would suffice but I can explain on the talk page 66.183.66.239 00:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The edit summaries help, but when you delete an entire section without a discussion first then it looks exactly like vandalism to some of us. I obviously did not understand your intentions. The safest thing to do is to explain on the Talk page first. Paul 00:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You accidentally left a message for User:81.84.174.159 on this page instead of this. I'll move your comments and delete the mistakenly created article. Owen× ☎ 17:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reporting 71.83.93.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) on WP:AIV. However, please make sure before doing so that the user has been committing vandalism after having been properly warned. Having received a final warning for the specific problem at issue (in this case, spam links) is generally required. In this case, the user may not have understood at all what they did wrong due to the genericity of the warnings they received. See also WP:UTM for a handy list of warnings. Best, Sandstein 22:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by removing stuff from wikipedia? I found better wording for informations that I found (and also realized some parts of the article may be false) so I replaced it. It basically said the same thing so... If you want me to bring back some stuff I will. I'm still not completely wikipedia knowledgeable so.. sorry..

(comment above was unsigned, left by User:Naruelle on 6 February 2007 and reference is to article Asuca Hayashi.)

"Please do not remove content from Wikipedia, as you did to Taskmaster. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -- Paul (User:Lpgeffen) 02:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)"

Sorry, I was just reading the article and noticed that there were about 10 lines of "blahblahblahblah" (literally) at the bottom of the page. I thought it was vandalism and removed it. Is there a different protocol that I have to use for removing vandalism? I don't edit stuff on wikipedia that much so I don't know. 68.4.102.34 04:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You did the right thing. I scan for blocks of text removed by anonymous users, and your edit looked like that. Sorry for the "false positive" - don't pay any attention. -- Paul (User:Lpgeffen)

First of all, I thought it was disgraceful that on Zora Neale Hurston's page somebody wrote FUCK YOU BITCH right before the section discussing her death and because I don't deal much with Wikipedia and the edit page has many codes, I probably altered the incorrect section.Eventually, I did get delete it and you should be thanking me not threatening me with talks of vandalism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.230.145.212 (talk) 15:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Warning was removed from your talk page, and replaced with thanks. -- Paul (User:Lpgeffen)

You're welcome. At the very least I try to watch out for inappropriately used speedy deletion tags. I wasn't trying to imply that you are new, but I also wanted you to be aware that new page patrollers sometimes fall on the "tag first, ask questions later" side; starting with sources referenced usually deters that kind of tagging in the presence of a stub article. Leebo⁸⁶ 16:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at other comments on this talk page you will see that I do sometimes "tag first" and then find out that I tagged a constructive revert. It doesn't hurt to remind me. -- Paul (User:Lpgeffen)

erm, thanks. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 21:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. (I'm a somewhat stern critic myself sometimes.) -- Paul (User:Lpgeffen) 22:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Lpgeffen ! Thanks for your support in connection with the tampering with the Richter page. As you know, this Steiner Redlich has been repeatedly deleting content from the page, in spite of many warnings by several editors (myself, THD3, Emerson7 and Grover cleveland). He has even been temporarily blocked over this issue, but was back at his disruptive stance as soon as the block was lifted. My suggestion is that we first restore the page to its prior form and then lock it for some time, while we somehow try to convince Steiner that his current attitude is alien to Wikipedia standards. Failing that, I'm afraid we would have to block him indefinitely. Thanks again and best regards, MUSIKVEREIN (talk) 13:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Geffen:

Who in the hell is Marina Veranikina?????????? Never heard of her. I notice much of her silly reference material is expired or comes from non-notable sources. Placing her name next to Dobrowen and Safonov is beyond obscene, so please correct.

Russian instrumentalist (talk) 21:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you're talking about. Paul (User:Lpgeffen) (talk) 21:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Paul. Thank you for your great contributions. In your user page, you mention that trovar.com is your website and yet you added many links in Wikipedia to it. I commend you for being honest about it, but please be cautious before adding links to your site. Thank you. Sole Soul (talk) 17:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. I have been cautious and only added links to Wikipedia that add real value to the site. I always defer to the wisdom of the community and so far I have not heard any objections nor seen any of the links removed. But I will take this as a warning and start a discussion on the relevant Talk page before I add another link. Paul (User:Lpgeffen) (talk) 21:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the lack of objections thus far is a lack of objection to you adding them. Because of your other good contributions your adding of links does not get the scrutiny other users get, I'm sure you are aware of that. There is no policy in WP:Spam or WP:COI that says: judge the additions by their value only. Thank you. Sole Soul (talk) 22:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lpgeffen,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Nick Levay for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Shovon (talk) 16:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:William Berger Headshot.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lpgeffen/Bit9.
• To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page.

Thank you for your
contributions to Wikipedia!

• Please remember to link to the submission!

• You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 13:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Lpgeffen, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Normand Edward Fontaine Bridge, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bascule (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Wikipediholism test. Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 06:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Would you take a look at the Natalie Sandtorv page and give an opinion?

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lpgeffen. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lpgeffen. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]