User talk:Sussmanbern

Hello, Sussmanbern, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You said "(I don't know how to type tildes) // [email protected] 4/20/08 ====" on Talk:Puttin' on the Ritz. You add them by typing shift and "`" at the same time on most keyboards. Or just copy/paste the four tildes above. Or click on the four tildes below the edit box where it says Sign your username. —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 11:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Deadwood (TV series) are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. 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. RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 03:08, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Kol Nidre and other articles. Please be aware of the punctuation rules in WP:REFPUNC. I corrected a number of errors in Kol Nidre (with explanation in the edit summary), only to find you had soon put them back in. Punctuation should immediately precede <ref>s. Hertz1888 (talk) 02:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am very sorry to hear about your loss of text, but I don't see how it could have any connection with my simple edit. What I did (here) changed no wording and involved no Hebrew characters. I hope everything is back on track. Please rest assured your hard work and diligence are appreciated. Hertz1888 (talk) 07:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Welcome to Wikipedia. Some of your edits have been reversed by another editor. Please reference your claims on articles with sources formatted as inline citations. Do not synthesize material from original research and be sure your sources are within the Wikipedia standards for relaible sources.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited your good faith contribution as an illustration of the proper way to cite a book reference. Inline citations are the accepted format at wikipedia. These can be used for books, journals and websites. If you have questions feel free to ask at my talk page or if you would like you may use the "Cheet sheet" on my page for more inline citation formatting! Thanks.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Wikipedia uses block paragraphs, not indented paragraphs. This is so even when quoting a source that uses indented paragraphs. See WP:MOS#Allowable typographical changes. I believe if you look at any well-edited printed source or any printed style manual you will see that the indenting of paragraphs follows the house style of the publication where the source is quoted, not the style used in the original publication from which the quote is taken. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:38, 2 May 2012 (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:The Falling Man are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. 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. SummerPhD (talk) 03:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		For your remarkable and scholarly expansion of our article on the Toledot Yeshu this award is overdue -- Kendrick7talk 03:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Juanin Clay is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juanin Clay until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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. Redrose64 (talk) 17:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I moved a couple misplaced comments of yours down to their correct chronological place on that talk page, giving them separate topic headings. I think this will increase the chance of anyone responding to your question at Talk:Barack Obama presidential eligibility litigation#Should I add Westlaw, LexisNexis, etc. citations? --83.255.58.232 (talk) 13:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Haftarah, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lamentations. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sussmanbern. You have new messages at SpikeToronto's talk page.
Message added 05:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

— SpikeToronto 05:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited El Nora Alila, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Allegro. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Kol Nidre may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Prayerbook Reform in Europe'' (1968, NY, World Union for Progressive Judaism) pages 337-340.</ref> (An English translation - "O come, day of God" - of Stein's hymn was used, in the place of ''Kol

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

¶ Your message came only moments after I wrote that mistake and while I was still fussing with the same article, but I am grateful for your help - because otherwise I would have missed it. Sussmanbern (talk) 03:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd welcome your input on how to split the Gunfight at the O.K. Corral article. See the discussion here. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 23:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chad Gadya, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The House that Jack Built. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you still in the Miami area? Do you do photo requests? WhisperToMe (talk) 04:30, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, we've never met. I think a talk page somewhere stated that you were an alumnus/alumna of a high school in Miami WhisperToMe (talk) 06:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

There is a discussion at Talk:Winter Palace about an edit that you recently made to the article. Please contribute if you would like to. Giano (talk) 16:00, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please don't use the paragraph symbol (¶) when replying on talk pages as you did at Talk:Pi. Use an appropriate number of colons (:). See WP:THREAD for more detail. Thanks. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 18:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sussmanbern. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Alephb (talk) 02:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have announced your ownership of the article List of Bible verses not included in modern translations when you told User:Alephb on their talk page "PLEASE DO NOT TAMPER WITH MY WRITING WHILE I AM WRITING IT!" [1] and posted on the article itself "WORK IN PROGRESS. PLEASE DO NOT ERASE OR OTHERWISE INTERFERE UNTIL FEB, 15th 2018".

Please be aware that no editor can own an article, and that you cannot insist that other editors do not change your edits. We do have a template {{In use}} which displays at the top of the page

"This article is actively undergoing a major edit for a short while. To help avoid edit conflicts, please do not edit this page while this message is displayed", however, other editors can remove the template if you haven't edited the article for some hours."

There is also the template {{Under construction}}, which displays

"This page or section is in the process of an expansion or major restructuring. You are welcome to assist in its construction by editing it as well. If this template page has not been edited in several days, please remove this template. If you are the editor who added this template and you are actively editing, please be sure to replace this template with {{in use}} during the active editing session."

Neither of these templates allow you to "take over" an article and exclude others from editing it, they merely act as a means to help coordinate editing.

Further, your announced methodology of adding material without sources, and then adding the sources later, is sub-optimal. Wikipedia policy is clear that material which is unreferenced is potentially subject to immediate deletion. You are much better off adding sources as you go, rather than splitting the task in such a way that your material can possibly be deleted.

Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and editors who do not learn how to collaborate are regularly blocked from editing, some of them indefinitely, due to not having shown their ability to work harmoniously with other editors. Please keep this in mind, and work harder to cooperate with Alephb, and other interested editors, on the improvement of the article which it appears you both care about.

Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:01, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for a clear threat of violence at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Bible_verses_not_included_in_modern_translations&diff=next&oldid=818791423. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.  SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Sussmanbern (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #20270 was submitted on Jan 09, 2018 02:12:35. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 02:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC) If you were able to edit my talk page, you're not exiled. I've reverted your edit to remove your email address, since you didn't need to supply it to get a response from me. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As your unblock was handled off-Wiki, for the benefit of those of us who defended you at the AN/I thread, could you clarify what you meant when you brought up the Second Amendment? Joefromrandb (talk) 05:24, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was intended as humorous, the way Dave Barry makes references to gruesome things. I doubt that a ref to a portion of the US Constitution legally qualifies as a "clear threat of violence." Especially as regards people whose identities are concealed and who may be a thousand miles away (and especially with an elderly lawyer and librarian like me). However, the discussion of previous "editing wars" over that one article suggests to me that on some controversial or sensitive articles, some individuals are determined to goad potential contributors beyond endurance rather than allow enlargement of the article. In any case, that one article is Cursed, at least as far as I am concerned, and I will not be returning to it. Anyone masochistic enough to want to try working on that article may contact me for my suggestions - which clearly do not please everyone. Sussmanbern (talk) 06:55, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see. You have to be incredibly careful, as meaning itself is difficult to convey over the Internet, and nuance is all but impossible. I hope you understand going forward that it is never, ever acceptable to make those kinds of jokes here. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have received an email that someone - identified only by a number with repeated decimal points rather than any sort of name - had sent a message here (well, somewhere on this page) at 7:54 on Wednesday morning. I cannot find such a thing. If anyone can clarify, please do so. Sussmanbern (talk) 18:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sussmanbern,

Our article Kemron now has four references. You may want to consider editing your user page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:11, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty of editing it. While editors enjoy a limited amount of autonomy as far as pages within their own user-space go, it is not acceptable to continue to post information that is demonstrably false. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:24, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of New Testament verses not included in modern English translations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Papias (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Doniago. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article, Sleep Walk, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please also see WP:IPCV. DonIago (talk) 13:58, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

H'm. Again, as above: you are an experienced editor. Mandalay (poem). Citations needed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to have to repeat this, especially with an experienced Wikipedia editor, but you absolutely must not add uncited materials to articles: links to other Wikipedia articles, even if formatted with <ref> tags, are not citations, because Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source, and the injunction (where the citation ought to be on Mandalay (poem)) to look at other articles for whatever broken references, notes, Wikilinks, asides, and other matter may happen to have accumulated there over the years is no substitute for verifiable links to proper sources, in place, in the article itself. So, please, stop. Thank you. I'm very willing to discuss proposed changes with you, and even to help you find suitable sources to cite them with: just ask. Many thanks for your understanding. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:20, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They (or you) keep stripping away my explanation of the line in the poem about the name of the Burma girl. She named for the latest (and last) queen of Burma. This is so simple (and, to anyone familiar with the history of Burma in the 18th century - now, for Americans, an obscure topic, obvious) that it should require no references at all. I could find plenty of books who would identify the queen of Burma, but erasing my explanation of her name over such a trifle is ....... Sussmanbern (talk) 14:13, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for replying: jaw jaw is better than ... the alternatives, as Churchill said. As I said above, I'm very happy to collaborate.

Now, on the "such a trifle", with "should require no references at all", I really do beg to differ. Wikipedia is not a collection of words made up by editors: it is a collection of sources, with summaries of what those sources are: in other words, sources are absolutely central to Wikipedia. This message is repeated many times in Wikipedia policy: WP:V (verifiability) is a "pillar of Wikipedia"; so is WP:RS (reliable sources); so, put the other way, is WP:OR (original research), which is the lack of reliable, verifiable sources. This is, like it or not, what Wikipedia is about.

If you really don't like sources, one might wonder discreetly why you are here? Sources are the bread and butter, the meat and potatoes, of Wikipedia editing. Without them, the whole thing makes no sense at all; and I must express surprise that you have managed to continue for so many years without running into serious trouble if you don't believe in them, actually.

To business. I am perfectly willing to add a paragraph of (additional) background to the article, but only on condition that it is fully and reliably cited: this is something mandated by policy, and quite rightly too. In fact, given that you are reluctant to source the material, I think I will simply go ahead and create a suitably cited summary of the existing articles. We can and should link those articles: but wikilinks are no substitute for citations, not least because there is then no assurance at all that the material is reliable and verifiable. All the best, and I hope that this is clear, logical, and if not exactly welcome given the indications you have given about your view of the matter, at least understandable and visibly in line with policy. Many thanks for your understanding, Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:32, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you profusely for going that extra mile and rewriting my entry with acceptable citations. I can tell you I spent the last hour accumulating my own source citations from books & articles available from the internet for the same purpose, but you seem to have found better quality sources than I did. I thank you again. I can appreciate your instructions, but I had been thinking along the lines of "Nobody can dispute that Thebow was the last king. Nobody can dispute that Supayalot was the last queen." Etc. Sussmanbern (talk) 16:40, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll leave you with one simple thought: "Nobody should" is not the same as "Nobody can". There are many facts attested by overwhelming evidence (evolution springs to mind), but ... Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:44, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Hello! Voting in the 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) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:41, 24 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) 00:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:33, 28 November 2023 (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) 00:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]