Misplaced Pages

User talk:Ucucha: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 13:01, 29 August 2010 editUcucha (talk | contribs)Administrators38,569 edits →Cosmetic only changes: re← Previous edit Latest revision as of 19:05, 19 November 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,299,652 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to User talk:Ucucha/Archive37) (bot 
Line 3: Line 3:
|archiveheader = {{User talk:Ucucha/header}} |archiveheader = {{User talk:Ucucha/header}}
|maxarchivesize = 50K |maxarchivesize = 50K
|counter = 22 |counter = 37
|algo = old(10d) |algo = old(10d)
|archive = User talk:Ucucha/Archive%(counter)d |archive = User talk:Ucucha/Archive%(counter)d
}} }}


== Peer review newsletter #1 ==
== Upcoming FACs ==


{{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Peer review/newsletter 1}}
:''Current FAC: '']'' – ].''
<!-- Message sent by User:Tom (LT)@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Kadane/PRV/Mailing_List&oldid=854722168 -->
I keep track of articles I intend to nominate at ] here. Feel free to leave any comments. I am adding a fake signature so that this section does not archive. ] 19:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
*'']'' – ready, but waiting till I have access to a main source (Ray, 1962) again
*] – will try to get an image
*'']'' – same
*'']''
*'']''
*'']''
*'']''
*] – waiting for GA review


==] has been nominated for deletion==
== Questions ==


<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>] has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the ] guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at ''']''' on the ] page.<!-- Template:Cfd-notify--> Thank you. ] (]) 14:14, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Per a comment left by ] at the ] (for ]), he thinks that recent changes make the article a better nom. for FA than it did before. Thus, two questions come from this:


== Invitation to participate in a research ==
#The article now has more prose than it did before, and no longer summarizes ], which was one of his points. Thus, it stands out more as an article than it did before. Do you agree and should we consider moving to FAC, or can that even be done within a nom. without closing it?
#So far, only Matthew and Peregrine Fisher (the latter without opinion either way, just that it's an OK nom.) have visited. I've asked a few regular FAC/FLC contributors for their opinions, of which none is given yet (and I don't know whether it will be). What is the best way to find people with constructive opinions? T.V. doesn't seem to be finding me many. I have listed the FL on the WikiProject page for the time being in a further attempt to gain opinions.


Hello,
Just curious about your thoughts here. Thanks in advance. =) ] (]) 19:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
:Season articles are usually FLs (see ]) and some of those have comparable text-to-list ratios to your article, but there are also some FA season articles (]). Perhaps there is some system there; I don't see it. I think most would do fine as FAs; they certainly don't have as much list material as the usual FL. I guess it comes down on what you prefer.
:You shouldn't worry too much about too little feedback; people will usually eventually come along, especially at FLC. Have you tried doing some reviewing on other nominations yourself? ] 19:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this ''''''.
::I have helped one nominator of another article with some corrections on his review; as for reviewing, however, I fear that my personal reviewing skills might not be to par with the standards in the community. I will give it a try over time, but I don't think I'm quite there yet.


You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
::Frickative might pop in here as well; she's the co-nominator of the Glee nom. and may have a question herself. Thanks on my part for your answer, I'll also ask her what she thinks. ] (]) 20:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its ] and view its ] .
== ] ==


Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
Hey there, mind revisiting this one? Thanks, ] (]) 23:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
:P.S. The dab + dead link checks are much appreciated. ] (]) 23:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
::Thanks. It seems FLCs generally have fewer problems in the links than FACs, though. I'll check VH's list again. ] 05:39, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


Kind Regards,
== Your ] nomination of ] ==


]
Hi, Ucucha; good to see you again! I just wanted to let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article ] you nominated for ]-status according to the ]. ] This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. ] (]) 20:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
:Thanks; I'll try to address any concerns. ] 20:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
::I've passed the article, as I felt it easily checked against the criteria. I take this as a good omen; the first time I review a Good Article nomination, it succeeds! ] (]) 21:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


<bdi lang="en" dir="ltr">] (]) 19:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC) </bdi>
== GAN for ] ==
<!-- Message sent by User:UOzurumba (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=UOzurumba_(WMF)/sandbox_Research_announcement_list_for_enwiki_Current_Admins&oldid=27650221 -->


== Reminder to participate in Misplaced Pages research ==
I've reviewed the article and left notes on the talk page. I've put the nomination on hold for seven days to allow the issues to be addressed. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, here, or on the article talk page with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. ] - ] 22:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


Hello,
== Some arbitration for you! ==


I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Misplaced Pages. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its ] and view its ].
] Humor me, please. <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b><font color="#731A25">]</font></b><font color="#B31023">]</font></span> 15:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


Take the survey ''''''.
== A couple of things.... ==


Kind Regards,
If you have any time, I noticed ] GAN needed a second opinion. Didn't know if you'd seen it. Also, ] has a bit of a headache - it is an old Featured Article that YellowMonkey and I have been chipping away at improving (though probably should go to FAR - given your expertise on furry critters, can you see any glaring errors in the mammal section and easy ref pickups? I am not so good at furry as feathered things...:( ] (] '''·''' ]) 20:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
:I already commented at the Florida mouse GAN, and added another comment. There are a few problems in the fauna article, yes.
::D'oh - I had a slow connection and didn't check :( ] (] '''·''' ]) 11:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


]
:*The lead of the "Mammals" section suggests bats disappeared from Australia from the Eocene until the Miocene; I'm not aware of any evidence for that. Also, rodents first appeared in Australia quite late in the Miocene—which is important to mention, since the Miocene is relatively long.
:*In the piece about convergent evolution, I don't see why Eurasia and North America are specifically mentioned. I don't think the gray wolf looks much more like a thylacine than African jackals or some South American canids; anomalures look as much like sugar gliders as flying squirrels do; and anteaters are mostly South American.
:*There are (at least) five living species of monotremes, not four.
:*"Marsupials are characterised by the presence of a pouch in which they rear their young."—no; many marsupials don't have a pouch
:*There are eight (not seven) peramelemorphians in Australia, plus three recently extinct.
:*"The evolutionary origin of this group is unclear, because they share characteristics from both carnivorous and herbivorous marsupials."—not really, as far as I'm aware. They're just an independent group from both.
:*The largest possum in Australia appears to be '']'', and '']'' comes close.
:*There are eight Australian bat families now that ] and ] are recognized as families. (Both have been going back and forth for a while, but in the last few years they have usually been recognized as families.)
:*Australia has three (not two) endemic bat genera: '']'', '']'', and '']''.
::*Four actually; I forgot '']''. (''Scoteanax'' and ''Vespadelus'' were not universally accepted until a few years ago; that is probably the reason for the lower figure.) ] 13:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
:*"The old endemics are represented by 14 extant genera."—I count 13; I have no idea what the 14th would be. (The number will likely grow soon, though, as '']'' is going to be split up.)
:*Calling ''Rattus'' "the rat" is confusing at best; many Old Endemics (the term is usually capitalized, I believe) are equally called "rats". There is also an eighth, unnamed indigenous ''Rattus'' species.
:*'']'' only marginally occurs in Australia, but would probably count as another species not deliberately introduced.
:] 06:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
:*Also, saying that marsupials originated in Gondwana ("Origins" section) is a bit of a stretch, though perhaps technically true; metatherians (marsupials and their fossil relatives) were most diverse in North America during the Cretaceous.
:*The article is missing a lot of biogeographical information—e.g., the general similarity of the New Guinean to the Australian fauna; the relationship of the Australian fauna to that of other nearby islands; faunal regions within Australia. ] 07:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


<bdi lang="en" dir="ltr">] (]) 00:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC) </bdi>
:Oh crap. Okay, I can see the article is needing quite a bit of work...] (] '''·''' ]) 11:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:UOzurumba (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=UOzurumba_(WMF)/sandbox_Research_announcement_list_for_enwiki_Current_Admins_(reminders)&oldid=27744339 -->
::I'm afraid so. ] 13:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


== ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message ==
== '']'' ==


<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
I have finished reviewing the literature sent to me by ] and feel I'm about ready to submit '']'' for FAC. Since you did the GAC, would you mind skimming over it again whenever you have time? The only lingering issue that I can see is the plethora of unexplained terms. In that regard, I may need some advice. I'm concerned that if I try to add brief explanations in parentheses, it may make the text unreadable. At the very least, can suggest which terms are the most important to explain? Otherwise, I think I've covered everything. –&nbsp;'''] «]»''' 05:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
<div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</div>
:Yes, there are some unexplained terms that I think need explanation—I don't even know what a postorbital bar is, for example. Otherise, there are a few minor things:
<div class="ivmbox-text">
::*I'll try to get to the terms... but again, I'm worried that the text will become harder to read by offering descriptions. I just wish I knew why this is always required of biology articles, but not of geology, opera, and other technical topics that I've reviewed at FAC. –&nbsp;'''] «]»''' 14:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
:::*I think it's reasonable now. ] 15:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
:*"It had a narrower snout and a more gracile skeleton, similar to but smaller than ''M.&nbsp;pithecoides'', making it more like the living sifakas."—are the comparisons here to ''pithecoides''? It's not entirely clear.
::* Fixed. –&nbsp;'''] «]»''' 14:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
:*"M3 (third molar)"—M3 is conventionally only the third upper molar, but perhaps the third lowers are also meant here.
::* I wasn't sure if M3 meant permanent while m3 meant deciduous, but if that's the convention, then that's how I'll interpret it. It's been fixed. –&nbsp;'''] «]»''' 14:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
:::*Deciduous molars don't exist (unless you're writing on ]s, which you probably are not). ] 15:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
::::* Sorry, wasn't thinking past the obvious. Most of the sources I've seen seem to use lower case for deciduous and upper case for permanent, so that's why I wasn't sure. –&nbsp;'''] «]»''' 16:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
:::::*Really? I think deciduous teeth are usually given with a "D" prefix (i.e., DP3, dp3), and sometimes just D/d for deciduous premolars. Rice rats don't have deciduous teeth, though, so what do I know. ] 16:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
::::::*I'm not an expert, but that's the impression I was under. There may also be different notations, depending on which field you're working in. –&nbsp;'''] «]»''' 19:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
:*The average skull lengths by species are given in the "Species" section, and the ranges under "Anatomy and physiology"; that reads disjointed.
::* Before I fix this, I need to figure how to state it. I already give ranges in the latter section, and averages in the former. With the conversion, merging them could get messy. Any recommendations? –&nbsp;'''] «]»''' 14:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
:::*Perhaps you can give the ranges and average for each species in the "Species" section, and the overall range for the genus in "Anatomy". ] 15:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
::::*Sounds resonable. I'll try to take a look sometime today. I'll even try to do the same for the intermembral index. –&nbsp;'''] «]»''' 16:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
:*post-orbital or postorbital? (I'd use the latter, but perhaps primate anatomists favor the hyphen.)
::* Both seems to be used evenly in the literature, although in the primate literature, "postorbital" seems to come out on top. I've made it consistent within the article. –&nbsp;'''] «]»''' 14:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
:*Piping "hand and foot bones" to ] and ] doesn't seem right; those are only a few of the bones of the hand and feet.
::* The source wasn't that specific, so I simply removed the link. –&nbsp;'''] «]»''' 14:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
:] 07:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


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.
Thanks for the re-review! I will try to get around to reviewing your latest candidate after a short nap this afternoon. –&nbsp;'''] «]»''' 19:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
:Well, you got your first support. Great if you can have a look at ''Seorsumuscardinus''. ] 19:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small>
== '']'' peer review ==


</div>
Hi there Ucucha! It has been a while since '']'', hasn't it? How are you doing? I know you are a very experienced editor here in en:Misplaced Pages, and an awesome writer no less. Would you be so kind as to help with the ? In case you have time and patience, your opinions and tips would be greatly appreciated! Best wishes. --] (]) 12:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
</div>
:Thanks, I'll try to take a look. I may not have much time, though, as I'm moving back into college soon. ''O. antillarum'' is one of the next items on the FAC queue. ] 13:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Coordination/MM/01&oldid=1258243333 -->

== Thank semi-spam ==

], which has passed as successful! Cheers, ] (]) 14:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)]]
:Thanks, congratulations, and good luck! ] 15:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

== Signpost ==

I've added everything you've mentioned, and Dispenser has fine tuned it and says it looks ready on IRC. Does it look about ready for publication? <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b><font color="#731A25">]</font></b><font color="#B31023">]</font></span> 16:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
:I'm making some minor tweaks now. I don't use linkclassifier, but shouldn't linkclassifier.css go to your .css, not .js, page? Also, Innotata stated correctly on the talk page that the screenshot of HotCat is of the Commons, not the English Misplaced Pages version of the tool. ] 16:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
::The difference isn't major enough to warrent removing the tool is it? The linkclassifier codon I forked from her tool description page. It's probably easier to add it to JS instead of CSS, because it's one edit and most people have a js but not a css (including me). Also, tell Visionholder I said hi :P <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b><font color="#731A25">]</font></b><font color="#B31023">]</font></span> 16:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
:::Never mind, I guess Anomie has it correct. (.js and .css are different, by the way, and if it works if you put it in one, it will almost certainly not work in the other.) The HotCat picture doesn't show what en.wp users—the target audience—will actually see when they use the tool, but the difference isn't major. ] 17:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
::::If anyone has the wp image I'd love for them to upload it. Anyway, does it look about ready? <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b><font color="#731A25">]</font></b><font color="#B31023">]</font></span> 23:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

== Re-write of ] ==

I'm getting ready to start the re-write for ]. Since it is the most heavily studied lemur, this raises an important question concerning comprehensiveness. At what point do the details become "too much"? I'm sure there are plenty of detailed studies about diets, morphological measurements, etc. from numerous localities, so at what point do I draw the line? I'm worried that this article could rival ] in terms of size and depth if I'm not careful. –&nbsp;'''] «]»''' 03:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
:It looks like you already made a daughter article on vocalizations; perhaps a few more daughter articles are appropriate. Otherwise, perhaps look at the major secondary sources (''LoM'', I think there is a ''Mammalian Species'' account) for guidance as to what things to include. ] 06:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

== ] ==

What to do about this? Best, ] (]) 23:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
:It needs some improvement, of course, like all articles on pet rodents, which attract inordinate amounts of bad material. The best way to proceed is to improve the article with good sources, weed out the bad stuff, and carefully guard the article. ] 09:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
::What I mean is that White Russian is now ]. So, should the article be cleaned out and replaced with a redirect? ] (]) 10:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
:::Sorry, missed the spelling difference. I think the best course of action is to redirect it to Djungarian and place a hatnote there. ] 10:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
::::Good plan. I'll look after it. Sorry I wasn't more clear. Best, ] (]) 10:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

== ] ==

]
I've offered a review. Generally great, obviously, but a couple of thoughts that may improve the article. You clearly understand the subject matter far better than I do, so I'll trust your judgement if you think any of my suggestions are silly. ] (]) 12:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
:Thanks; I'll have a look soon. (That picture is great, by the way; it made me realize just how weird the multituberculate p4 is.) ] 09:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

==Cosmetic only changes==
:Yes you are correct, generally SmackBot will avoid making edits like that unless there is a more substantive change happening at the same time. However there are a number of reason (]) why it may visit articles and make only less substantive changes. At the moment there is a fair amount of category lag around. ''] ]'' 12:59 ] ] (UTC).
::In this case, it seemed SmackBot was editing pages it had already (substantively) edited briefly before. Are you perhaps running two instances with slightly different code? By the way, you placed this message here with the bot account. ] 13:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 19:05, 19 November 2024

Archives

Leave a new message

Peer review newsletter #1

Introduction

Hello to all! I do not intend to write a regular peer review newsletter but there does occasionally come a time when those interested in contributing to peer review should be contacted, and now is one. I've mailed this out to everyone on the peer review volunteers list, and some editors that have contributed to past discussions. Apologies if I've left you off or contacted you and you didn't want it. Next time there is a newsletter / mass message it will be opt in (here), I'll talk about this below - but first:

  • THANK YOU! I want to thank you for your contributions and for volunteering on the list to help out at peer review. Thank you!
  • Peer review is useful! It's good to have an active peer review process. This is often the way that we help new or developing editors understand our ways, and improve the quality of their editing - so it fills an important and necessary gap between the teahouse (kindly introduction to our Wikiways) and GA and FA reviews (specific standards uphelp according to a set of quality criteria). And we should try and improve this process where possible (automate, simplify) so it can be used and maintained easily.

Updates

It can get quite lonely tinkering with peer review...With a bit of effort we can renovate the place to look like this!

Update #1: the peer review volunteers list is changing

The list is here in case you've forgotten: WP:PRV. Kadane has kindly offered to create a bot that will ping editors on the volunteers list with unanswered reviews in their chosen subject areas every so often. You can choose the time interval by changing the "contact" parameter. Options are "never", "monthly", "quarterly", "halfyearly", and "annually". For example:

  • {{PRV|JohnSmith|History of engineering|contact=monthly}} - if placed in the "History" section, JohnSmith will receive an automatic update every month about unanswered peer reviews relating to history.
  • {{PRV|JaneSmith|Mesopotamian geography, Norwegian fjords|contact=annually}} - if placed in the "Geography" section, JaneSmith will receive an automatic update every yearly about unanswered peer reviews in the geography area.

We can at this stage only use the broad peer review section titles to guide what reviews you'd like, but that's better than nothing! You can also set an interest in multiple separate subject areas that will be updated at different times.

Update #2: a (lean) WikiProject Peer review

I don't think we need a WikiProject with a giant bureaucracy nor all sorts of whiz-bang features. However over the last few years I've found there are times when it would have been useful to have a list of editors that would like to contribute to discussions about the peer review process (e.g. instructions, layout, automation, simplification etc.). Also, it can get kind of lonely on the talk page as I am (correct me if I'm wrong) the only regular contributor, with most editors moving on after 6 - 12 months.

So, I've decided to create "WikiProject Peer review". If you'd like to contribute to the WikiProject, or make yourself available for future newsletters or contact, please add yourself to the list of members.

Update #3: advertising

We plan to do some advertising of peer review, to let editors know about it and how to volunteer to help, at a couple of different venues (Signpost, Village pump, Teahouse etc.) - but have been waiting until we get this bot + WikiProject set up so we have a way to help interested editors make more enduring contributions. So consider yourself forewarned!

And... that's it!

I wish you all well on your Wikivoyages, Tom (LT) (talk) 00:31, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Category:Fictional toothed whales has been nominated for deletion

Category:Fictional toothed whales has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:14, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to participate in Misplaced Pages research

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Misplaced Pages. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)