User talk:Carlm0404

When making a comment on a Talk page, please end your comment with this symbol ~ four times, no spaces. When you save your comment, those characters will automatically become your signature. I’m going to type four of these ~ right here—/> Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:05, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I only wanted to say that I had made numerous unsigned edits and comments on Wikipedia and am only recently registered with a signon on it. Carlm0404 (talk) 22:32, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Carlm0404. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Editor's index to Wikipedia

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:25, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Loughlin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:16, 13 October 2019 (UTC)\[reply]

This has been changed to remove said pointer to disambiguation page. Carlm0404 (talk) 20:27, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Kingston, Canada (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to John Larkin and John Murdoch

Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Córdoba (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Roberto Rodríguez

Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Halifax-Yarmouth (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to William Walsh

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:36, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Córdoba, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Roberto Rodríguez (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:01, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Baltimore, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Whitfield (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:12, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Roman Catholic Diocese of Saint-Jean-Longueuil, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Lebel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:46, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't believe we need to include metropolitan information in suffragan dioceses. It only clutters and crowds the infobox. Also, it makes updating arduous after archbishop appointments. Elizium23 (talk) 23:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please respond. Elizium23 (talk) 23:40, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I stopped including metro_archbishop parameter as I continue editing. The first ecclesiastical province affected was Nueva Pamplona, Colombia. Carlm0404 (talk) 02:29, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Elizium23 (talk) 23:41, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Echegaray, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Etchegaray (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:30, 17 November 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) 00:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages William Barry, John Dunne and James Whyte (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, regarding Roman Catholic Diocese of Lwiza and other diocesan articles. The lists of bishops are not compliant with the WP:Manual of Style in various ways. You may want to modify them so that they align with that better, as you are going through and updating leadership.

• Bishops of XXX (Roman Rite) This is nonsensical; clerics are not of a rite, but of a Church. I modify these to Bishops of XXX (Latin Church) (note: Latin Rite is imprecise because sometimes it means the Latin Church, and occasionally it means the Roman Rite. The former two terms are unambiguous.)
• "reverse chronological order" is no good. Everything else like this is in forward chrono order. I have been reversing the lists manually.
• MOS:DATE says we can't have ambiguous dates like 1997.03.03. Convert them into March 3, 1997 or 3 March 1997 depending on the national ties.
• Thanks and it's a pleasure working with you in Catholic topics! Elizium23 (talk) 02:04, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I encountered numerous cases of reverse chronological order, and that's a quick way to explain what I "inherited"; i.e. it was that way when I got there. Carlm0404 (talk) 09:04, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You mention 1997.03.03. Again, this is an "inherited" form, and actually not ambiguous. Ambiguity kicks in if the numbers for month and day are different and each is less than 13; for example, my own birthday is August 2. Carlm0404 (talk) 09:09, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elizium23 (talk) 15:28, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. One of your recent contributions to Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Santiago de Chile has been reverted or removed, because it contains speculative or unconfirmed information about a future event. Please only add material about future events if it is verifiable, based on a reliable source. Elizium23 (talk) 17:57, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Damn it, why was the addition to list of ordinaries reverted when I asked that it not be? The following is in catholic-hierarchy and presumably should be included on Wikipedia even if we come to the unlikely event of the appointment not taking effect. There are cases on Wikipedia where this has happened.

Appointed Celestino Aós Braco, O.F.M. Cap. Archbishop of Santiago de Chile Carlm0404 (talk) 12:23, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is incorrect. The appointment has taken effect, but His Excellency has not taken office. The list is for those who have taken office. If he is not installed, then he never took office and should not be in the list. Why are you so concerned that he may not be installed? Elizium23 (talk) 13:05, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want me to point out an appointment which is on Wikipedia but which never took effect? I don't know if I should do that because of what you did here. Carlm0404 (talk) 13:16, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know there are lots of them. For years people copied directly off catholic-hierarchy.org, for better or worse. That's what gave us those atrociously-formatted lists of ordinaries with ugly dates and appointment dates instead of installations - which is, as I said, incorrect. Even David Cheney agreed with my observations there. Elizium23 (talk) 13:20, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Newark. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Please observe MOS:HON and MOS:POSTNOM which discourage addition of honorifics and post-nominal initials in most places and articles. Elizium23 (talk) 17:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the 3 auxiliary bishops whom I just put in as ", elect" have been removed, although they are still in a sentence at the bottom of the Auxiliary bishops list. I have had to develop conventions myself in my editing of bishop information into these various pages; for example, coadjutor is either in office now or succeeded to the see or gets a remark that he did not succeed to the see. You're too vague when you send me complaints. I am considering making some complaint about you. Did YOU remove those 3 lines??? Carlm0404 (talk) 10:55, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is admittedly even more difficult in the case of auxiliaries (and perhaps coadjutors) to determine when they have been installed. There isn't necessarily a newsworthy liturgy that accompanies it. Obviously it is easier to know when this involves a consecration/ordination to the episcopate.

But I apologize for my vague message. I tried to make it clear with a personalized note at the end. MOS:HON and MOS:POSTNOM prevent us from including honorific prefixes and post-nominal suffixes in most places in the article. So a list of bishops in the body, or in an infobox, will have bare names without "Most Rev." or "Father" or "OCD" or "OFM" etc. This is manual of style guideline, uniform for all of Wikipedia. Hope this helps. Elizium23 (talk) 11:20, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic-hierarchy does go ahead and list auxiliary-bishop-elect, and it did so with these 3 appointments to Newark archdiocese, and ", elect" indicates this and is not honorific. We WOULD include something like OFM or OCD, because that means he has been a priest of that order, ev Carlm0404 (talk) 12:32, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

...even though he officially separated from the order due to being a bishop. Jorge Bergoglio was SJ, but with him as Pope Francis the SJ designation is gone. Also, here I never used stuff like Most Rev. or D.D. Carlm0404 (talk) 12:36, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I discussed the usage of post-nominals indicating religious institute and we agreed that they are not an exception to MOS:POSTNOM so they stay out of articles as well (except for the lede sentence of a biography.) But I am curious why you think that a man would separate from his religious institute upon consecration to the episcopate? Charles Chaput did not, nor has Sean Patrick O'Malley, Francis George, or Joseph W. Tobin. As for Pope Francis, his status as a Jesuit is a bit murkier, and I am generally aware that he is no longer considered affiliated under obedience to any superior there. But that's a special case of the Roman Pontiff. Bishops do not, as a rule, separate from their religious institutes. Elizium23 (talk) 13:33, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted you at Roman Catholic Diocese of Nitra. As @Robert McClenon: explained here on your talk page, post-nominal letters "are not necessary in articles that refer to a person" such as the diocesan articles which refer to bishops. Post-nominals and honorific prefixes can be mentioned once in the biography about the subject, if it exists. Elizium23 (talk) 18:19, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I issued this alert in error and I am retracting it, because it does not apply to your editing. Sorry. Elizium23 (talk) 04:15, 30 March 2020 (UTC) Elizium23 (talk) 22:19, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Roman Catholic Diocese of Westminster (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to John Wilson, Henry Howard, Thomas Grant, Thomas Dunn and George Errington

Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Birmingham (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Joseph Gray

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:07, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please check that any link you make goes to the right place. James Sharples was an artist, not a Liverpool cleric. I have fixed one but not the other instance: please fix the other both. The "linking to disambiguation" reports above are similar problems: please check all your links. Thanks. PamD 06:35, 28 March 2020 (UTC) Updated 08:17, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And it turns out that he already has an article, at James Sharples (bishop) PamD 06:44, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I assumed James Sharples was not a common name. Thanks for that fix; I had already corrected the linking-to-disambiguation (including some which were not detected by the system). And since I've become an editor here, I have corrected some other cases of linking to the same name but wrong person.

Carlm0404 (talk) 16:31, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I found disambiguation pages for Sharples and for James Sharples, so I mentioned the 2nd page on the 1st one. At this writing, I am left wondering about Sir James Sharples. Carlm0404 (talk) 16:34, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Glasgow (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to James Lynch and James Ward

Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Liverpool (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Thomas Holland and Joseph Gray

Roman Catholic Diocese of Hexham and Newcastle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to John Douglass and Robert Cornthwaite

Roman Catholic Diocese of Portsmouth (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Thomas Holland

Roman Catholic Diocese of Westminster (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to David Mathew

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:29, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use disruptive, inappropriate or hard-to-read formatting, as you did at Roman Catholic Diocese of Mohale's Hoek, you may be blocked from editing. There is a Wikipedia Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Elizium23 (talk) 22:16, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Elizium23 (talk) 06:43, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have closed this DRN thread because there has not been adequate discussion at talk pages. Please follow the guidelines in the Manual of Style. Titles and post-nominal letters should be used once in an article about a person, to indicate what they are. They should not be used elsewhere, and are not necessary in articles that refer to a person, because a reader can look them up in the article on the person. If there are questions, please discuss on an article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon, thank you; your summary confirms that I am correct, and I will continue to revert Carlm0404 on this matter. Elizium23 (talk) 18:15, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, you may be blocked from editing. Elizium23 (talk) 18:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I remain extremely concerned about your editing patterns. It's not just the minor MOS issues that you leave behind for me to mop up - but there are more than a few of those. It's also the sourcing issues. In case you haven't noticed, I have been tagging {{unreferenced section}} those sections on bishops you're editing. You need to find reliable secondary sources even if it's just throwing in Catholic-Hierarchy.org to shut us up. Unreferenced sections where we have no idea where you got the information, no es bueno, comprende? Also the date formats are atrocious. They're clearly a copy-paste from Catholic-Hierarchy and they violate our MOS on dates. Please convert them when you rearrange the chronological order. You're already in there, just do a thorough job and people like me won't have to come after you for all the rest, okay? Elizium23 (talk) 18:21, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Cape Town, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Rooney (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:21, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Kampala, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paul Ssemogerere (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:16, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make disruptive edits to Wikipedia contrary to the Manual of Style, as you did at List of Catholic bishops in the United States. Elizium23 (talk) 07:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use disruptive, inappropriate or hard-to-read formatting, as you did at Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Baltimore, you may be blocked from editing. There is a Wikipedia Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Elizium23 (talk) 00:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make disruptive edits to Wikipedia contrary to the Manual of Style, as you did at Roman Catholic Diocese of Nova Friburgo. Elizium23 (talk) 17:07, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your question, "Why doesn't that show have a wikipedia article?", Wikipedia had an article "Sheriff of Cochise", but it was deleted on June 1, 2020. Click on the red link Sheriff of Cochise to see a comment about copyright problems. Eddie Blick (talk) 19:23, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If I click on the red link here, I get sent to a page which might be commenting about copyright problems, but before I can read it, I get sent to page which says I am creating new page on wikipedia. I am not doing anything about creating new page about this, so there is nothing I can now do on that page. Please fix so I can read the page which I now can't read.

And why can't "Sheriff of Cochise" have a page without those copyright problems. Deleting that page is probably depriving people of some other information. Carlm0404 (talk) 14:45, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Greek Catholic Eparchy of Mukachevo; 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. Elizium23 (talk) 14:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your recent string of edits at List of songs recorded by the Beatles, you don't make it known, especially a table about a list of songs, if an artist is deceased. That's completely pointless and besides, the dagger is already used in the table. – zmbro _(talk) 19:19, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I JUST REALIZED MY MISTAKE. Thank you for reverting, since I was about to undo those edits while forgetting that I could revert quickly to a previous version. The problem, as you might figure out, is that the dagger has come up elsewhere to signify deceased. Yes, I realized the other meaning here: not originally written by any Beatles.

Perhaps consider separate links, each pointing for now to article for Jerry Leiber and Mike Stoller, for Leiber and Stoller. After what happened regarding the dagger, I don't want to put that back in just now. Carlm0404 (talk) 19:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Leiber and Stoller will ever have their own articles because apart from being one of the best songwriting teams throughout all of music, there really isn't much info about them separately. What sets Lennon and McCartney or Jagger and Richards apart is that all of them individually have a career outside of their songwriting partnership while as far as I know and from what I've found while researching, Leiber and Stoller don't have that much notability as individuals. What also sets apart Elton John and Bernie Taupin is that Taupin has collaborated with other artists , even though his partnership with John is what he's best known for, he has had a career outside of working with John. But as stated earlier, I don't think that was the case with Leiber and Stoller, which is why I think that they shouldn't get their own pages. But that's my two cents... – zmbro _(talk) 19:38, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Pope Marinus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Pope Martin

Pope Martin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Pope Marinus

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Super Bowl XLVIII, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Follow WP:TPO if you must change someone else's comments, though it's more straightforward to just WP:THREAD a response instead. —Bagumba (talk) 01:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please add insertion of succeeding bracketed remark to what you sent me, which is what I did (now deleted). OK, I shouldn't put that back in, but I did avoid deleting or editing the existing remark. Carlm0404 (talk) 02:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you take a look at the infobox for Roman Catholic Diocese of Kabinda now, you’ll see the proper way to give someone the title "Bishop elect". Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 13:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am really not sure what the problem is that you are unable to see the errors in the trhings that you do. It is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL to enter a priest/non-bishop's name in the infobox. You insist on adding post-nominals everywhere even after an RFC. Will I need to take you to ANI? Elizium23 (talk) 18:50, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Elizium23: Would you? Please PLEASE?! Can you point out how he just now replied to the bot below, and left a message on Martin IIIa's user page? This guy is a poster child for WP:CIR and I daresay WP:NOTHERE. You can end this. Please. — Smuckola(talk) 07:04, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pope Marinus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pope Martin.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the popes called Martin, and I don't think I can "correct" this. Carlm0404 (talk) 09:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 05:28, 25 August 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) 02:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:John F. Kennedy are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines, not for general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics, or statements based on your thoughts or feelings. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 00:08, 26 November 2020 (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) 00:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to you here, if you still care. It's two years late and I only noticed your question because someone else recently edited the page. Spike-from-NH (talk) 22:40, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]