User talk:PE fans

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, PE fans. 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]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, PE fans. 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]

Ways to improve 2005 Australian Open – Boys' Singles[edit]

Hi, I'm Meatsgains. PE fans, thanks for creating 2005 Australian Open – Boys' Singles!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Consider providing reliable sources to strengthen the page's verifiability.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Meatsgains(talk) 02:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve 2005 French Open – Girls' Singles[edit]

Hi, I'm Boleyn. PE fans, thanks for creating 2005 French Open – Girls' Singles!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please add your sources.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 20:53, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 2018[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Taiwan shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three 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.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 14:20, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at East Asia, you may be blocked from editing. Citobun (talk) 14:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is proud of being netrual in politics issues. Therefore, I don’t think we should try to get consensus between several editors about whether Wikipedia should support one side or the other side. Instead, if the consensus between both the sides of governments exists, it’s better to use it. In fact I think the opinions of billions of people is more important than the opinions of several single editors. Therefore, using the consensus of both governments to stay netrual is better than supporting either government’s claim.PE fans (talk) 18:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Citobun (talk) 03:20, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018[edit]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at East Asia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. General Ization Talk 04:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at East Asia, you may be blocked from editing. General Ization Talk 05:06, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is proud of being a democratic society maintaining netrual point of view. Please stop being deviation to either side of disruption.PE fans (talk) 05:09, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This issue has already been discussed with you, and these edits have already been rejected. Continue to make these changes without achieving consensus (which you have not attempted to achieve) and you will be blocked for disruptive editing. General Ization Talk 05:11, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, Wikipedia is not a democracy, and does not claim to be. Please stop blathering about democracy, as I see you have done on this page before. We operate by consensus here, and at this point your edits are not supported by consensus. General Ization Talk 05:17, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pleas look at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=East_Asia&type=revision&diff=854406946&oldid=854404279 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=East_Asia&type=revision&diff=843326110&oldid=843322820 to see how I fight against one side of user saying that Taiwan is part of China. On the other hands, my edit today fight against the other side of user saying that Taiwan is not part of China. Please understand that East Asia has complicated sovereignty disruptions. So it is extremely hard to stay neutral point of view. In this process, using geographic word “Mainland China” is a good choice because it is accepted by both PRC and ROC. PE fans (talk) 05:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant discussion concerning an editor's misuse of the {{trout}} template
@General Ization: This is not your talk page, you have no right to revert like that. And note that instead of discussing the content in dispute, you resort solely to observations about user behavior. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 05:39, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@CaradhrasAiguo: The comment in my edit summary linked above was specifically about your edit, in which you misused a template "intended for humorous use only" in the midst of a serious discussion about a content dispute. The template was clearly directed to me, not to the owner of this page; hence the misused and misplaced template was removed. If you would like to have a discussion with me about my editing practices, I have a Talk page you can use for that purpose. I will not engage with you on that topic here. General Ization Talk 11:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@General Ization: There are two sides of editors. What I did was to revert their point of view by netrual point of view. My naive hope is that both of them will make a concession and have a consensus on my version. However, it turns out that both sides disagree and changes netrual point view to their point of view. I’m tired for being involved in this issue. Perhaps I should return to editing tennis articles. If you are still willing to deal with this hard work, then I wish you good luck. PE fans (talk) 06:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not the person from whom you need to seek consensus, and here on your talk page is not the place to seek it. Please post on the Talk page of the article in question, including your argument for making the rejected change, where other editors of that article will see it. Alternatively, begin an RfC on the Talk page of a relevant article (e.g., Talk:China) where the issue can be discussed and a conclusion reached that can be referenced by the editors of multiple articles. General Ization Talk 11:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@General Ization: The recent issue comes from the sovereign disruptions on whether Taiwan is part of China. One side thinks China=mainland China+ Hong Kong+Macau+Taiwan，the other sides thinks China=mainland China+Hong Kong+Macau. I suggested Wikipedia to either stop using the word “China” or include sources to telling the reader the opinions of other organizations. Last month, one side removed the sources. When I add the sources back, they simply think me as the political agenda editor and asked Wikipedia to ban me. I had a debate on the talk page and it works temporarily. Recently, the other side is even more rude. They just revert Wikipedia to their version every day. I doubt whether the talk page works for them. PE fans (talk) 12:36, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The only Talk page discussion in which I show any record of you participating is this one, from May 2018. I do not show that a consensus was reached there, and it did not pertain specifically to the use of "Mainland China" versus "China". Unless you are willing to engage with other editors to discuss this issue and to not edit tendentiously in the mean time, you are likely to find yourself blocked from editing, whatever your good intentions. General Ization Talk 12:46, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@General Ization: The discussion in May was about this version https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=East_Asia&type=revision&diff=842721563&oldid=842133810 by the user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/118.160.173.128

That user wanted to change the opinion of ISO “Taiwan has its independent country code ‘Taiwan (province of China), TWN, TW’”. However, staying consistent with sources and indicating that it is the opinion of sources along is an important part of being netrual. When I posted this issue on the talk page, the ID user 118.160.173.128 did not reply. I agree that it may not be a consensus, but at least that user stopped making changes.

However, recently, the user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/114.253.207.187 wanted to list “Taiwan” as part of “China” like https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=East_Asia&type=revision&diff=854440027&oldid=854417952 That user also does not reply me. Instead, he keeps using different IDs to make the changes without reason. I doubt whether it is possible to make consensus with him.

That is the current status——The other users does not want to make a concession. I don’t know how to achieve balance between them. Could you find out a solution to this situation? PE fans (talk) 13:55, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The solution is as I described earlier: specifically, the initiation of a new Talk page discussion or an RfC at a relevant Talk page. General Ization Talk 14:05, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is not unanimity. The fact that there may be one or more editors whom you don't believe you will able to convince to subscribe to your arguments is not a valid reason to not seek consensus. The key will be to take steps to obtain broad consensus from a larger group of editors who may be more objective. There are various mechanisms to accomplish this, including the listing of an RfC at the relevant noticeboard (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Publicizing an RfC for more information). If consensus is achieved and other editors violate it, it will then be their problem and they will be dealt with accordingly. If, on the other hand, you are still unable to achieve consensus despite your efforts, you'll need to accept that the change cannot be made here. General Ization Talk 14:55, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2015 French Open – Boys' Singles Qualifying moved to draftspace[edit]

An article you recently created, 2015 French Open – Boys' Singles Qualifying, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@CASSIOPEIA: Please check 2015 French Open – Boys' Singles Qualifying again. The source is from ITF website. PE fans (talk) 13:54, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi PE fans, Greetings to you. What we need are independent, reliable sources (secondary sources) that the sources talk about the subject in depth and in length and not merely passing mentioned. The sources need to inline citate - pls check referencing for beginner on on inline citation. (note: sources from home page, marketing/press releases, user generated content sites and etc are considered primary sources and can NOT be used to demonstrate the notability of the subject). By the way, sources can be in any languages. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 14:23, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@CASSIOPEIA: Hello! This page is part of the Wikiproject [1] where the final goal is to have a single page for each event in the grand slam tennis competition. For example 1986 French Open - Men's single. The main source for this project is ITF tennis website. Moreover, most tennis score websites have cited ITF tennis webpage. Unfortunately, they are gradually deleted. Nevertheless, I've been able to find at least one of them -- Draw for 2015 French Open – Boys' Singles Qualifying. PE fans (talk) 15:00, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
PE fans, Greetings. Pls read the two messages above again as it explains the reasons and click the links for further info of the rejection. If you have further questions pls refer to Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 03:19, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@CASSIOPEIA: You are too strict on the reference. Since you ignore ITF, ATP, WTA websites and all the tennis data websites, you have to destroy all the tennis qualifying draw articles in the history! However, since the main article 2015 French Open – Boys' Singles DO meet the strict criterion, the only possibility now is to move the qualifying information to the main article.
PE fans, Greetings to you. It is that I ignore the ITF, ATO, WTA websites info, but as per Wikipedia guidlines, these are primary sources which is not independent from the subject for such it can not be used to support the notability of the subject. Thank you CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: 2015 French Open – Boys' Singles Qualifying (November 12)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CASSIOPEIA was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
CASSIOPEIA(talk) 14:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (1981 French Open – Men's Doubles) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating 1981 French Open – Men's Doubles.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process.

Please WP:INLINECITE sources.

To reply, leave a comment here and ping me.

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

Boleyn (talk) 17:31, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, PE fans. 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]

Your submission at Articles for creation: 1994 WTA Tour Championships – Doubles has been accepted[edit]

1994 WTA Tour Championships – Doubles, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

— pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 22:11, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: 1993 WTA Tour Championships – Doubles has been accepted[edit]

1993 WTA Tour Championships – Doubles, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

— pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 22:11, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: 1979 US Open – Mixed Doubles (November 22)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Tvx1 was:
The article is not complete enought to be suitable for publication.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Tvx1 13:15, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, PE fans! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Tvx1 13:15, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:1978 Virginia Slims of Philadelphia – Singles has a new comment[edit]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:1978 Virginia Slims of Philadelphia – Singles. Thanks! JC7V (talk) 05:08, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: 1978 Virginia Slims of Philadelphia – Doubles has been accepted[edit]

1978 Virginia Slims of Philadelphia – Doubles, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as List-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Legacypac (talk) 09:06, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: 1978 Virginia Slims of Philadelphia – Singles has been accepted[edit]

1978 Virginia Slims of Philadelphia – Singles, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Legacypac (talk) 09:07, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: 1993 Bank of the West Classic – Singles has been accepted[edit]

1993 Bank of the West Classic – Singles, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Legacypac (talk) 09:07, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: 1995 US Open – Men's Doubles Qualifying has been accepted[edit]

1995 US Open – Men's Doubles Qualifying, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Legacypac (talk) 09:08, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Context[edit]

When a reader clicks on "random article" and lands on a Wikipedia article, they should be able to understand what the article they see is about. The stub 1973 French Open – Mixed Doubles doesn't actually mention the word "tennis". Please use a clearer introduction, like "1973 French Open – Mixed Doubles was a tennis competition held as part of the 1973 French Open. Remember the encyclopedia is for an international audience, not all of whom will associate "French Open", or even "Mixed doubles", with tennis. (Golf? Curling? etc?) Just give a bit of context. Thanks. PamD 10:11, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD: You are talking about a common introduction style for tennis articles. For example, 2019 Australian Open – Men's Doubles, 2019 Australian Open – Women's Doubles, 2019 Australian Open – Mixed Doubles as well thousands of articles used the same style. Thus, if you think this is a big issue, please publish your suggestion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines. After a discussion there, hopefully wikipedia community will figure out an Article Guidelines about how to write a tournament article. Remark that this is a big project, so it's expected to get dozens of editors involved in such a discussion. PE fans (talk) 16:00, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merging[edit]

Thank you for implementing the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 US Open – Boys' Singles Qualifying. Could you also help with merging the other junior qualifying tournaments listed at Category:Grand Slam (tennis) junior tournaments please? I'll be happy to assist when I have a bit more spare time this weekend. Also, when you're finished merging each article, replace the old article with a redirect to the new article (including an {{r from merge}} template). Iffy★Chat -- 10:50, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done with US open and French open. PE fans (talk)
I'm done. PE fans (talk)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

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) 00:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MOS discretionary sanctions alert[edit]

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 the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision 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.

NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:44, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two confusing infoboxes in the Oceania article[edit]

Talk:Oceania

Someone is trying to insert "Two infoboxes" into the Oceania article with the second infobox stating that Oceania consists of 21 countries, not 14 countries. Your input will be highly appreciated! 2001:8003:9008:1301:B9F6:33CE:1491:37AB (talk) 17:32, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]

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) 02:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]

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) 00:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PE_fans&oldid=1056670159"