Content deleted Content added
| (33 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown) | |||
Line 15:
'Cape' is not just a connotation of ''burun''. It is one of the possible meanings of that Turkish word. You can't translate English 'foothill' as ''ayak tepesi'', and you can't translate Turkish ''dağ eteği'' as 'mountain skirt'. That has nothing to do with these languages employing poetry to name the concepts. In the word 'foothill', 'foot' means ''etek'', and in ''dağ eteği'' the word ''etek'' means 'foot (of a mountain)'. The meaning of a compound word can in general not be obtained by a literal word-by-word translation of the components without taking account of the context. --[[User talk:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 19:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
:Actually that is not quite correct if I may interject. The book by Fanny Davis. ''Palace of Topkapi in Istanbul''. 1970. ASIN B000NP64Z2 clearly refers to "Palace Point" on at least 11 pages (pgs. 7, 17, 40, 179, 209, 261, etc.) the term "Seraglio Point" however she does not mention once. Since ''saray'' means "palace", which used to be also called "[[seraglio]]" from Italian but the harem was also called that, I would actually tend to call it "Palace Point" as well, instead of an antiquated Italian (mis)translation. [[User:Gryffindor|<
::Er... what exactly is it that is not quite correct? I see no contradiction between what you wrote and what I wrote. Further, you may prefer "Palace Point" (a designation about which I have only said that it is a reasonable literal translation of ''Sarayburnu''), but the Google hit counts suggest that "Seraglio Point" is used far more commonly, by a factor of 200 or so. --[[User talk:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 23:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Line 24:
== Geber ==
Hello. This is something that has been discussed extensively in the [[Talk:Geber/Archive 1|talk page archives]]. Basically, users were [[WP:EW|edit warring]] of whether he was Arab or Persian, so we came up with the solution to simply mention that some sources say Arab while others say Persian, as his ethnic background is unclear. I think you are confusing the term "Persian" as a nationality and synonym for "Iranian" as opposed to [[Persian|Persian]] as the ethno-linguistic group. There is actually a debate about that [[Talk:Persian_people#Requested_move|here]] if you are interested. I agree with you that ideally we should not mention ethnicity at all but both Arab and Persian are up there as a compromise due to the long-standing conflict on that page. If we remove the ethnicity someone will eventually add back one of the two, and the edit warring would most likely resume. <
:The above posted in response to this:
Line 38:
::*Neil Kamil,Fortress of the Soul: Violence, Metaphysics, and Material Life in the Huguenots New World, 1517-1751 (Early America: History, Context, Culture), JHU Press, 2005. pg 182: "The ninth-century Persian alchemist Jabir ibn Hay- yan, also known as Geber, is accurately called pseudo-Geber since most of the works published under this name in the West were forgeries"
::This is only a handful of the sources on that page. I'm pretty sure that all of them pass [[WP:RS]]. The point is that the truth on Wikipedia is irrelevant. What matters is whether information can be backed up with reliable sources or not. It is not our job at Wikipedians to speculate or add [[WP:NOR|original research]]. We have very good sources for both Arab and Persian. IMO the current form of the introduction goes in accordance with Wikipedia's policies. <
:::It is not my aim to engage in speculation or debate as to ethnicity- my query speaks more to whether or not the terminology referred to is anachronistic, and if so, does that anachronism play into feeding derision; to this end, the cited references may be useful -or not- depending on the fashion of the time of origin. References may be cited to bolster several positions, with varying degree of quality; our choices as to which we cite describe our agenda -mine being to favor knowledge over belief. Present the 'facts', let the reader decide on the nature of truth -a practical policy. I am not disputing truth (not in dispute at all, actually). My comments were not directed to the body of the document, but the label of the image, as it's editing brought the mater to my attention. I am dispassionate, regarding this.[[User:Mavigogun|Mavigogun]] ([[User talk:Mavigogun#top|talk]]) 07:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Line 79:
Hi. Delete this if you want, but I noticed that you're getting a little upset. Try and stay [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:COOL cool]. Wikipedia is all about trying to contribute with a form of modern-day literature—which is Wikipedia—and if you can't expect respect from other editors, then some of that fun is ruined. I'm not here to ruin that for you. [[User:InternetHero|InternetHero]] ([[User talk:InternetHero|talk]]) 10:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
:Here's an opportunity to reflect on your 13-year-old self. [[User:Mavigogun|Mavigogun]] ([[User talk:Mavigogun#top|talk]]) 19:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
==New edit on Norse colonization of the Americas==
Line 119 ⟶ 121:
==[[WP:MOS#ENGVAR]]==
Please study the above. The edit summary of your edit to [[Michael Dickinson]], is incorrect: "nationality of topic irrelevant to spelling convention".[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Dickinson&diff=prev&oldid=276688719] Nationality of subject determines spelling convention. You should also not change the spelling convention already established in an article without very good reason, and usually obtaining consensus. '''''[[User:Tyrenius|<
:True- it should read, "Nationality of topic irrelevant in this case". I believed, erroneously, that the spelling had been recently changed from that previously used -'American' English- the edit was intended as a reversion. After assessing the many previous edits, it is clear that British English was used in the article from an earlier date than the American. It was not my intent to step into an edit war focused around language preference- quite the contrary.
Line 125 ⟶ 127:
:My reading of the MOS interprets the assertion that articles must be written in the language used by the subject as fallacious. One need not use diction native to California when speaking about residence of that state, nor style words to suit the land whence any other subject originates from. When it is germane to the content or the audience, preference is given to the least discordant varient- such as when the quoted work of an author is distractingly different from that of the article about said work or author, or when it is disruptive due to cultural context. Neither are the case here. [[User:Mavigogun|Mavigogun]] ([[User talk:Mavigogun#top|talk]]) 09:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Per [[Wikipedia:ENGVAR#Strong_national_ties_to_a_topic]]: "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the appropriate variety of English for that nation." An English person has a very strong tie to a particular English-speaking nation, namely England, and the article should use UK English. An article about a native Californian should use US English. This is widely accepted and practised. It would be quite inappropriate for an article on the US president, for example, to use UK spelling throughout, even if the article had been started with UK spelling. It would need to be changed. '''''[[User:Tyrenius|<
:However, that is not always the case- and most certainly not with the article in question. While it is of no consequence (as there is no sound argument for revision of convention), the focus of the article is not on nationality- but notoriety in a third country (namely, Turkey). As such, the subject is no different than many other artists in the public sphere, such as actors, who attain fame outside of their birth country; I submit the 'American' English penned pages for Mel Gibson and Anthony Hopkins as two of many, many examples.
Line 303 ⟶ 305:
==Talkback==
{{talkback|Solarra|ts=04:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)}}
[[User:Solarra|<
== Women in Turkey ==
Line 326 ⟶ 328:
You have been [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_inventions_in_the_medieval_Islamic_world&diff=566822139&oldid=566818478 reverted]. Now, per [[WP:BRD]], the reason is that we have a reputable source for invention in the region rather than mere first use. More discussion is on the talkpage.
If you can prove otherwise, we can discuss and amend appropriately.
Cheers, [[User:Aua|<
== August 2013 ==
Line 390 ⟶ 392:
::::::I ask that you presume what you preach. I see you've been warned for edit-warring before. Cheers. -- '''[[User:AlexTheWhovian|<span style="color:#1632E0;text-shadow:1px 1px 8px #324A6E;">Alex</span>]]'''''[[User talk:AlexTheWhovian#top|<sup><span style="color:#1632E0">TW</span></sup>]]'' 17:02, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
:::::::A discerning reader free from disperaging motive will recognize the "warning" in question is sourced directly to a contesting editor who sought to besmirch here rather than engage on the appropriate article talk page. Again, AlexTheWhovian, I encourage you to spend your energies on the talk page in a collaborate effort; what has been offered here has mostly distracted from anything productive.[[User:Mavigogun|Mavigogun]] ([[User talk:Mavigogun#top|talk]]) 17:20, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
::::::::I encourage you to practice what you preach. Thank you. -- '''[[User:AlexTheWhovian|<span style="color:#1632E0;text-shadow:1px 1px 8px #324A6E;">Alex</span>]]'''''[[User talk:AlexTheWhovian#top|<sup><span style="color:#1632E0">TW</span></sup>]]'' 02:33, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
:::::::::AlexTheWhovian, I will not indulge your "I-know-I-am-but-what-are-you" repetition juvenility here. Desist. Any constructive comment you care to contribute at the article talk page will be appreciated and given due consideration.[[User:Mavigogun|Mavigogun]] ([[User talk:Mavigogun#top|talk]]) 17:22, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
== ArbCom 2018 election voter message ==
{{Ivmbox|Hello, Mavigogun. Voting in the '''[[WP:ACE2018|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 [[WP:ARBCOM|Arbitration Committee]] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration|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 [[WP:BAN|site bans]], [[WP:TBAN|topic bans]], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy|arbitration policy]] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2018/Candidates|the candidates]] and submit your choices on the '''[[Special:SecurePoll/vote/710|voting page]]'''. [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}}
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2018/Coordination/MMS/07&oldid=866998231 -->
==Li Hongzhi, the midwife, and the misunderstood transliteration of a therapeutic class==
Regarding your edit, not quite in the Vandal style, of the Li Hongzhi article, where reference to Chinese medical use of oxytocics was removed, wouldn't it have been better to improve, rather than simply remove?
I wrote that snippet, and first, I should have made clear that, in the kind of patient records one finds in the region, around that time, it's not possible to distinguish 'oxytocin' and 'oxytocic'. Funnily, the same is true today. So you see, if I write that my patient had arrived reporting having been administered oxytocin by some country doctor, I'd write '催产药'. If, on the other hand, I write that my patient has been administered something by a quack which I believe may be some form of old fashioned imperial oxytocic, I'd say it was '催产药'.
催产药 vs 催产药. Spot the difference?
Hopefully this now becomes obvious. The FG lot can't stake any kind of claim of proof either way, from the fact that a clinical record mentions oxytocin before first synthesis, because what would have been written would have been, for decades before the actual discovery of oxytocin as we know it in the West (late 1900s BTW). I didn't even bother to go into the fact that oxytocin was in routine use all over the world well before artificial synthesis in 1954.
I don't give a fig about FG, like most I'm sympathetic, but that claim to challenge the old midwife, as if oxytocin was only_discovered_the year after that fellow was presumably born, well, that shouldn't stand. First, the midwife could very easily have had access to stocks of oxytocin (any hospital lab with a technician who can handle animals can produce it - don't ask anyone with a PETA bumpersticker to do it) decades before Mr Li was conceived, and if she didn't, the range of available therapies which fall into the category we with Western training call oxytocics, and which have been in use since imperial times, would be extensive in Jilin, which has a rather proud history of effective ancient medicines.
The FG claim that Mr Li's midwife was part of some conspiracy of misinformation may be true, but the claim they try to rest it on is grammar-school gossip-level nonsense.
If you can still edit a semi-protected page, do the right thing, fix it up. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/101.98.207.182|101.98.207.182]] ([[User talk:101.98.207.182#top|talk]]) 06:39, 23 February 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::Credible references are more compelling than argument, assertion-without-citation, supposition, and rationalization- matter-o-fact, it's our standard here. Create an account, build a demonstrable record of adhering to the standards of Wikipedia, identify credible sources, and make the edit yourself. Wikipedia is open for anyone to use- I'll not be employed as agent. The apparent anachronism of "I believe may be some form of old fashioned imperial oxytocic" isn't the primary fault of the statement- it's the "I believe". [[User:Mavigogun|Mavigogun]] ([[User talk:Mavigogun#top|talk]]) 13:03, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I'm not asking you to act as my agent, I'm suggesting you tidy your mistake.
Regarding the 'apparent anachronism..', I can only guess at how my illustrating how I would record information about a patient, when I'm told they've been prescribed some kind of natural remedy of uncertain origin, as translating into any kind of matter of personal belief regarding the subject matter of the article under discussion, could come to pass.
The point is, FG sought to cast doubt on a midwife's account, because she mentioned oxytocin, on the basis oxytocin wasn't known until after the purported use, when in fact oxytocin was discovered decades before FG imply it was discovered (they got a date right, but for first lab synthesis, not the much earlier discovery). Further, if you and I were speaking or reading any of the dialects of Jilin, she would have said words to the effect that she had used oxytocin_before_it's discovery, because to the ear, and on the page, the therapeutic class from since imperial China looks and sounds like 'oxytocin'.
Conditions were rough in China at the time, but not barbaric, there were many good doctors and nurses/midwives, and oxytocin was available (easy hospital lab diy).
I'm unsure why the bib cited lacks credibility, but I can only guess at the limits of your knowledge and perspicacity, and I'm humbled, deeply by your example. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/101.98.207.182|101.98.207.182]] ([[User talk:101.98.207.182#top|talk]]) 13:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::::Again, if you believe there are credible references to support a particular edit, supply them with the edit. What you pose here is an argument of misinterpretation- if it is so, document it. By-the-way: I'm not motivated by snark- while I endeavor to not reflexively dismiss good ideas co-located with pettiness, I'm only human. Something to consider moving forward. [[User:Mavigogun|Mavigogun]] ([[User talk:Mavigogun#top|talk]]) 17:05, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
== ArbCom 2019 election voter message ==
<table class="messagebox " style="border: 1px solid #AAA; background: ivory; padding: 0.5em; width: 100%;">
<tr><td style="vertical-align:middle; padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">[[File:Scale of justice 2.svg|40px]]</td><td>Hello! Voting in the '''[[WP:ACE2019|2019 Arbitration Committee elections]]''' is now open until 23:59 on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2019|end}}-1 day}}. All '''[[Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2019#Election_timeline|eligible users]]''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The [[WP:ARBCOM|Arbitration Committee]] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration|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 [[WP:BAN|site bans]], [[WP:TBAN|topic bans]], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy|arbitration policy]] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019/Candidates|the candidates]] and submit your choices on the '''[[Special:SecurePoll/vote/{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2019|poll}}|voting page]]'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
</td></tr>
</table>
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2019/Coordination/MMS/03&oldid=926750323 -->
== January 2020 ==
[[File:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|left|alt=Stop icon]] Your recent editing history at [[:Evliya Çelebi]] shows that you are currently engaged in an [[Wikipedia:Edit warring|edit war]]; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|talk page]] to work toward making a version that represents [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See [[Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle|the bold, revert, discuss cycle]] for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant [[Wikipedia:Noticeboards|noticeboard]] or seek [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary [[Wikipedia:Protection policy|page protection]].
'''Being involved in an edit war can result in you being [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked from editing]]'''—especially if you violate the [[Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule|three-revert rule]], which states that an editor must not perform more than three [[Help:Reverting|reverts]] on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—'''even if you don't violate the three-revert rule'''—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> [[User:Dartslilly|Dartslilly]] ([[User talk:Dartslilly|talk]]) 18:18, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
::Your participation in that exchange and disregard of extensive preceding discussion at the talk page on the area of dispute betray a defensive motive behind this reproach. It’s easy to disregard the work that precedes your contribution, cite a best practice that seems to affirm your choices- but policy tools must be wed to judgement to be constructive, [[User:Dartslilly|Dartslilly]]. [[User:Mavigogun|Mavigogun]] ([[User talk:Mavigogun#top|talk]]) 00:42, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
== ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message ==
<table class="messagebox " style="border: 1px solid #AAA; background: ivory; padding: 0.5em; width: 100%;">
<tr><td style="vertical-align:middle; padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">[[File:Scale of justice 2.svg|40px]]</td><td>Hello! Voting in the '''[[WP:ACE2020|2020 Arbitration Committee elections]]''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2020|end}}-1 day}}. All '''[[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2020#Election timeline|eligible users]]''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The [[WP:ARBCOM|Arbitration Committee]] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration|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 [[WP:BAN|site bans]], [[WP:TBAN|topic bans]], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy|arbitration policy]] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2020/Candidates|the candidates]] and submit your choices on the '''[[Special:SecurePoll/vote/{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2020|poll}}|voting page]]'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 01:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
</td></tr>
</table>
<!-- Message sent by User:Xaosflux@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2020/Coordination/MMS/03&oldid=990308186 -->
== ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message ==
<table class="messagebox " style="border: 1px solid #AAA; background: ivory; padding: 0.5em; width: 100%;">
<tr><td style="vertical-align:middle; padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">[[File:Scale of justice 2.svg|40px]]</td><td>Hello! Voting in the '''[[WP:ACE2021|2021 Arbitration Committee elections]]''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2021|end}}-1 day}}. All '''[[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021#Election timeline|eligible users]]''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The [[WP:ARBCOM|Arbitration Committee]] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration|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 [[WP:BAN|site bans]], [[WP:TBAN|topic bans]], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy|arbitration policy]] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021/Candidates|the candidates]] and submit your choices on the '''[[Special:SecurePoll/vote/{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2021|poll}}|voting page]]'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>[[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 00:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)</small>
</td></tr>
</table>
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2021/Coordination/MM/03&oldid=1056563210 -->
== Notice regarding subjects related to Eastern European articles ==
{{ivmbox | image = Commons-emblem-notice.svg |imagesize=50px | bg = #E5F8FF | text = This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. ''It does '''not''' imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.''
You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions|discretionary sanctions]] is in effect. Any administrator may impose [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Sanctions|sanctions]] on editors who do not strictly follow [[Wikipedia:List of policies|Wikipedia's policies]], or the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Page restrictions|page-specific restrictions]], when making edits related to the topic.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{tlx|Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Guidance for editors|guidance on discretionary sanctions]] and the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration Committee's]] decision [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe|here]]. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
}}<!-- Derived from Template:Ds/alert -->
'''[[User:Aman.kumar.goel|Aman Kumar Goel]]''' <sup>(''[[User talk:Aman.kumar.goel|Talk]]'')</sup> 16:29, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
::At 9:50-ish I posted feedback for your tact at [[Talk:Vladimir Putin]]- a couple hours later, you... deposit ...this generic notice tasting of retaliatory bluster- a non specific attempt to intimidate. Tell me: what utility was your post here? What was exactly the product you hoped to achieve?[[User:Mavigogun|Mavigogun]] ([[User talk:Mavigogun#top|talk]]) 19:03, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
:::It is a standard notice ought to be posted on talk pages of the users who have edited Eastern-European related namespace just like you have. If you read the note carefully, you will find that it explicitly says that "It does '''not''' imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date." '''[[User:Aman.kumar.goel|Aman Kumar Goel]]''' <sup>(''[[User talk:Aman.kumar.goel|Talk]]'')</sup> 20:19, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
::::The purpose of the notice is clear. However, it is not an auto-generated notice- you took it upon yourself to post it to my talk page. What was YOUR purpose in doing so? Please be specific.
::::[[User:Mavigogun|Mavigogun]] ([[User talk:Mavigogun#top|talk]]) 20:29, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
== ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message ==
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em; flex: 1 0 40px;">[[File:Scale of justice 2.svg|40px]]</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''[[WP:ACE2022|2022 Arbitration Committee elections]]''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2022|end}}-1 day}}. All '''[[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2022#Election timeline|eligible users]]''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The [[WP:ARBCOM|Arbitration Committee]] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration|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 [[WP:BAN|site bans]], [[WP:TBAN|topic bans]], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy|arbitration policy]] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2022/Candidates|the candidates]] and submit your choices on the '''[[Special:SecurePoll/vote/{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2022|poll}}|voting page]]'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>[[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 00:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)</small>
</div>
</div>
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2022/Coordination/MM/03&oldid=1124425182 -->
== ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message ==
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em; flex: 1 0 40px; max-width: 100px">[[File:Scale of justice 2.svg|40px]]</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''[[WP:ACE2023|2023 Arbitration Committee elections]]''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2023|end}}-1 day}}. All '''[[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023#Election timeline|eligible users]]''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The [[WP:ARBCOM|Arbitration Committee]] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration|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 [[WP:BAN|site bans]], [[WP:TBAN|topic bans]], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy|arbitration policy]] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023/Candidates|the candidates]] and submit your choices on the '''[[Special:SecurePoll/vote/{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2023|poll}}|voting page]]'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>[[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 00:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)</small>
</div>
</div>
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2023/Coordination/MM/03&oldid=1187132125 -->
| |||
