User talk:ReadOnlyAccount

Cp37, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

dxneo (talk) 05:05, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DoubleGrazing was:

This is not the correct place to request new redirects. Please follow the instructions at Article wizard/Redirects. Thank you.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Elephants all the way down and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:03, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ReadOnlyAccount! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering 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! DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:03, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, ReadOnlyAccount. I saw you've repeatedly edited your post on Talk:List of numeral systems. Per WP:TALK#REPLIED you should not edit your own comment after it's been replied to. Also, consider the second bullet of WP:TOPPOST, Avoid excessive use of color and other font gimmicks. I think the highlighting you did could be justified (if I knew what your intent was), but it's something to keep in mind in the future. In general, WP:TALK lists all the relevant guidelines.

What are you trying to do with your edits at that talk page? I know Wikipedia's guidelines are both legion and opaque at first, so perhaps if you explain what your goal is, I can help point you in the direction to better accomplish it. EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:08, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above relates to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReadOnlyAccount (talk • contribs)

ReadOnlyAccount, I strongly encourage you to read the above linked guidelines. As a courtesy, I thought I should try to inform you of how talk pages are handled here, rather than at the article, but here you failed to sign a comment, and you then continued to modify your comment after it'd been replied to. EducatedRedneck (talk) 22:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article RAM card has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Could not find any reliable sources anywhere on the internet, it is probably not notable enough. Please look at WP:NRV for more information. I also think RAM cards are interchangeable from RAM drives, but please correct me if I am wrong.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia 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. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 21:58, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for thanking me! (Thankception? Lol)

Положение my page right there 01:03, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ReadOnlyAccount, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

While your contributions are appreciated, I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, RAM card, 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/RAM card.

Deletion discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. Our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. The most common issue in these discussions is notability, but it's not the only aspect that may be discussed; read the nomination and any other comments carefully before you contribute to the discussion. 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|Significa liberdade}}. And don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

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

Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:41, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Multifunction card. 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. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:47, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if I should feel bad because it's on me that the sources were kind of hidden (because of reasons), or if you should feel bad because you've really not looked closely before pulling the trigger. That said, I'm really not going to argue any more of this today. I think I've said my piece in relevant places, maybe in several wrong places like Larry Laffer, but I contend that smart people who care have all the information they need to make wise decisions. –ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 04:34, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, ReadOnlyAccount-- Multifunction card has been moved to draftspace, where you can continue to work on it. This can help save it from being placed for deletion until it is ready for the main space. Many articles exist on Wikipedia about technology that existed prior to the internet as people certainly learned new information before the "WWW" (see IBM 7030 Stretch, for example). If a topic is notable according to Wikipedia's guidelines, it should be discussed in books, magazines, journal articles, etc. You can use those sources to prove your subjects are indeed notable. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 16:49, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. When replying to someone, it's helpful to ping them so they know you have responded. You can ping by writing @[[User:Significa liberdade|Significa liberdade]] (as an example). Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 16:51, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ReadOnlyAccount,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Multi-I/O card for deletion, because it's a redirect from an article title to a namespace that's not for articles.

If you don't want Multi-I/O card to be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

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

Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ReadOnlyAccount,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Multi-function card for deletion, because it's a redirect from an article title to a namespace that's not for articles.

If you don't want Multi-function card to be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

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

Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I again apologize for improperly using the PROD function, thank you for pointing it out, like it says on my User Page 'please tell me if I am doing something wrong'! However, Wikipedia needs citations for its articles, according to WP:OR, so if an article doesn't have reliable references, it will probably be deleted. Thank you for your understanding. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 04:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies accepted. Thank you. –ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 04:35, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Social media forum has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 4 § Social media forum until a consensus is reached.

Also listed under the same nomination is Social bookmarking forum. (Leaving this message as I’ve just seen you weren’t notified when these were nominated.)

Best, ^user:A smart kitten_meow 06:44, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Based on you aversion to information loss expressed in your essay, Wikipedia:Redirects to nowhere, you may be interested in helping identify controversial or inappropriate deletion proposals. ~Kvng (talk) 16:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not having paid proper and timely attention to the link in the headline. My editing is a bit erratic, maybe mood-driven, I feel. It's not that I don't want to look, but no promises. Thanks for the hint either way. —ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 20:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

People like you make the newcomers have more confidence in wikipedia's community!

Hym3242 (talk) 12:48, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kindness. Fingers crossed I won't un-earn this by being more abrasive again soon – as I'm conscious I've arguably sometimes been. I think the kitten is working as positive reinforcement though. So Pavlovian. Much conditioning. Very behaviourism. Wow. —ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 20:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ReadOnlyAccount. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Elephants all the way down, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 08:05, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ReadOnlyAccount

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Викидим and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I've asked for a discussion about the redirect Telegraph wire, created by you. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 5 § Telegraph wire.

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

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

Викидим (talk) 21:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm perplexed by your reverts. Leaving a paragraph without a signature following it is just not part of how talk pages are used. "Attributing unsigned comments" and "Signature cleanup" are among the things permitted by the talk page guidelines to edit others' comments to do. If it weren't for "PS:", your small text would be indistinguishable from an unsigned comment. And this is what happens when someone replies to your comment using the reply tool. What do you want out of leaving the text unattributed so badly you spend dozens of words in summaries? What are you trying to accomplish here? Nardog (talk) 15:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add to this, can you please stop adding unsigned P.S. do your comments? If you want to add a PS please either sign it separately, remove the earlier signature and place a new signature, or even just move your existing signature if it's only a short time later. (To be clear only move your signature if a precise timestamp doesn't matter. If you're adding a P.S. and someone already replied, you need a new timestamp for the P.S.). By adding unsigned P.S. you're making it impossible to use the reply tool to reply to you. If editors did try, they'll be replying to your original message separating your P.S. from your original message and making it confusing who left the P.S. It's also confusing to anyone when you actually left this P.S. so no one knows if e.g. you only added it after someone already replied. Nil Einne (talk) 08:43, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ReadOnlyAccount. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Multifunction card, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 04:06, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ReadOnlyAccount. Thank you for your work on Aurora Rising. Another editor, Voorts, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Please remember to tag redirects that you create per WP:REDCAT.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Voorts}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

voorts (talk/contributions) 05:35, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Voorts: I didn't add a category this time, because I wasn't sure what category was applicable. Thankfully —well, it's a mixed blessing at times, but here definitely thankfully— I'm not alone here, and I see you've added something, for which, thanks. :) —ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 13:23, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 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 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) 00:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Code page 855, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Code page 855 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. I come in peace. You reverted the "just" edits I made. I think the first one made sense and I overstepped with the second, but the word "exclusively" would make more sense in place of "just" on the second one. I am going to think about it. It seems to minor to even do this on the Talk page for "family office" but I'm down to discuss here if you want. Or delete this if you don't want this in your talk page. Dflovett (talk) 15:56, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stand by one; I want to sleep on it. ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 09:58, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dflovett: Sorry to leave you hanging. Anyway. Back to this. Theeee change, or dare I say þꙷ  change of the first "just" – I think omitting that also changes the meaning. To my mind, there's a difference between something being "like" another thing, meaning there's some resemblance, however much or little, and something being "just like" another thing, meaning it's close to, if not entirely identical. Removing that first "just" would de-emphasise the extent to which a family office resembles a corporation or LLC. Granted, perhaps the OP didn't actually weigh out their words that attentively and with that intent in mind – perhaps the OP just used conversational speech, but even then, I think a measure of such speech is perfectly fine, and it flows better. Not everyone agrees with that stylistic preference. For instance, I've just seen a guy named Harris make a square meal out of replacing all the Facebook likes in an article with masses of such asses. (Yes, I am in fact a big child.) That, to me, is totally unnecessary, and even rubs me a little wrong, but eh....
Speaking of largely synonymous stylistic alternatives, your suggestion to replace the second "just" with "exclusively" kind of gives me similar vibes. (Vibe check mentioned.) I wouldn't revert it, just as I haven't reverted Guy Harris's such-asses. Because that would be such-as-assassination, an' datwood prolly be 'arrassment, guv'nor. AND YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW THE SELF-CONTROL IT TOOK to not explain the "like" vs "just like" thing above with much iffier jokes. They're just jokes, but they're no jokes for the "wokes" – who'd have probably popped an aneurysm and/or banned me for producing the wrong humour in the wrong place. —ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 21:13, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PS: One might, however, second thought, quibble as to whether "exclusively" is in fact synonymous with "just". In "and just allocate funds to outside managers", if you were to change that "just" to "exclusively", that would be a different meaning from, say, changing the "just" to "merely".

Hello ReadOnlyAccount! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Unicode code points in wikitext, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread. See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:36, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm writing after you restored your original commentary to the clarify tag at North Sea. One of the problems is that you've stuffed way too much commentary into a tiny tag that most people aren't going to see anyway. In particular, the last sentence, However this paragraph got to its present state, it is badly in need of clarification., is redundant because the fact that the clarify tag is there speaks for itself. The best place for your exposition is the article's talk page, which is well-suited for lengthy analyses. The "reason" field on the clarify tag then only needs to say "See talk". Largoplazo (talk) 11:26, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not unreasonable to believe as you do, but it is just as arguable as it is questionable whether it is better to keep notices to other editors more strictly relegated to Talk page sections, which —one might equally well argue— "most people aren't going to see anyway", or, on the other hand, whether it is better to keep such notices more closely tied to "the scene of the crime". Editing styles are going to differ, and if my mildly opinionated notice was redundant there, then so is yours here.

What is a problem worth noting, is that some people on Wikipedia, I'm not necessarily saying that's you, but certainly some people here, often quite seasoned people, feel entirely entitled to routinely vandalise Wikipedia to make a point. And that's driven by pedantry. They revert good contributions based not even on their not liking the style of someone's article prose, but based on editing styles. They're okay with what you submitted; they just don't like the way how you submitted it, so they want to play pedant-policeman-parent and make you do it again. They use a shoot-first-and-ask-no-questions-later approach, because actual diligence would take too long, and they don't want to waste their time, they want you to waste yours. In actually wasting everybody's time like that, they think they're doing important work. They insist they have to do this, to "educate" other editors, feeling the latter "need to hear it", if not "feel it" so they will "educate themselves". The pedants are here to "teach you important lessons", which pedants feel they know better than. They're here to police you, not write an encyclopædia. Crucially, they're perfectly willing to let the odds of article improvement, or even more directly: actual Wikipedia article content suffer in favour of their condescension and chaperoning crusades.

And if you drill down into it, what goes on in just such a much-meritorious mind goes something like this:

"𝔑𝔒! 𝔍𝔬𝔬 𝔪𝔲𝔰𝔰𝔱 𝔢𝔡𝔦𝔱 𝔙𝔦𝔨𝔦𝔭𝔢𝔡𝔦𝔞 𝔢𝔵𝔵𝔞𝔠𝔱𝔩𝔶 𝔷𝔢 𝔴𝔞𝔶 𝕴 𝔩𝔦𝔨𝔢 𝔦𝔱, 𝔬𝔯 𝔢𝔩𝔰𝔢! ℨ𝔦𝔰𝔰 𝔦𝔷𝔷 𝔣𝔬𝔯 𝔶𝔬𝔲𝔯 𝔬𝔴𝔫 𝔤𝔬𝔬𝔡. 𝔄𝔫𝔡 𝔦𝔣 𝔶𝔬𝔲 𝔡𝔬𝔫'𝔱 𝔡𝔬 𝔷𝔞𝔱, 𝔧𝔬𝔬 𝔪𝔲𝔰𝔰𝔱 𝔟𝔢 𝔭𝔲𝔫𝔦𝔰𝔥𝔢𝔡 𝔲𝔫𝔱𝔦𝔩 𝔶𝔬𝔲 𝔩𝔢𝔞𝔯𝔫! 𝔄𝔫𝔡 ℑ 𝔳𝔦𝔩𝔩 𝔥𝔞𝔭𝔭𝔦𝔩𝔶 𝔟𝔯𝔢𝔞𝔨 𝔰𝔱𝔲𝔣𝔣 𝔱𝔬 𝔱𝔢𝔞𝔠𝔥 𝔶𝔬𝔲 (𝔟𝔢𝔠𝔞𝔲𝔰𝔢 𝖒𝖞, 𝖒𝖞, 𝕸𝖄 𝔦𝔫𝔱𝔢𝔯𝔭𝔯𝔢𝔱𝔞𝔱𝔦𝔬𝔫 𝔬𝔣 𝔷𝔢 𝔯𝔢𝔡 𝔱𝔞𝔭𝔢 𝔱𝔯𝔲𝔪𝔭𝔰 𝔷𝔢𝔰𝔢 𝔭𝔢𝔰𝔰𝔨𝔶 𝔩𝔦𝔱𝔱𝔩𝔢 𝔠𝔬𝔫𝔰𝔱𝔦𝔱𝔲𝔱𝔦𝔬𝔫𝔞𝔩 𝔭𝔯𝔦𝔫𝔠𝔦𝔭𝔩𝔢𝔰)."

Of course, don't call any such meritorious minds totalitarians. They're very touchy about that. As people usually are when you're over the target.

—ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 19:07, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I'm thinking about turning the above into an essay. What do you reckon?

I wouldn't say that stuffing an entire monologue about why editors may have done what they did and emphasizing the desperate need for clarification there helped improve the chances that someone would provide clarification.

By even adding the clarify tag, weren't you doing exactly what you're now accusing others of doing, questioning what one or more other editors wrote, and being pedantic about it? But then when it comes to what you wrote, nobody else possibly has a better idea than you how it would best read?

And I didn't say to get rid of the clarify tag, I suggested cutting the reason down to "see talk". By having both the tag and your comments on the talk page, that would improve your chance of being heard. But that doesn't matter, because I can't possibly have any good ideas to bring to bear, right? Largoplazo (talk) 21:58, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will concede that my thinking, at least as it relates to my previous comment above, got a little away from me, and it became a little HATSTANDy for a while. That's also why I eventually commented out a bunch. —ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 23:36, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ReadOnlyAccount! The thread you created at the Teahouse, A feature suggestion, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread. See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:14, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ReadOnlyAccount. Thank you for your work on Boxed copy. Another editor, Noleander, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Redirect is acceptable; ideally some editor will find time to convert this into a full article, or a stub

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Noleander}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Noleander (talk) 13:37, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ReadOnlyAccount. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Steam gauge, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 17:08, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ReadOnlyAccount. This message concerns the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Steam gauge".

Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission, and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions here. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 16:26, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. 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 2025 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) 00:59, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]