Hello, Batternut! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 01:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply] Getting Started Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost) Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		For an appreciation of your diligent contributions to cool and sincerely focus the editing and discussion on Middle East politics articles, I felt I should award a barnstar, and this one appears to suit best. 2A1ZA (talk) 04:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some reason you chose PROD instead of CSD or AfD? I was kinda confused when I saw the tag was a PROD. L3X1 (distant write) 01:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see any urgency or other factor that suggested CSD. I'm less familiar with AfD, it not having an obviously easy button to push on the Twinkle menu! Frankly any of PROD, CSD or AfD would be OK by me. Batternut (talk) 08:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Al-Masdar News 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/Al-Masdar News 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. Tradedia^talk 03:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Stickee: Could you help me understand the OR/primary source policy, as relates to my use of a Google result count on Al-Masdar News? Excuse me for being possibly slow to get the point...

So, WP:Primary says "articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources".

I understand that the Google page saying "About 5,560 results" is a primary source for the statement "Other news sites have quoted Al-Masdar News thousands of times".

The policy is "... primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care," and "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source."

Do you see my statement as interpretation, rather than a "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts", which is allowed?

Thanks for your help... Batternut (talk) 01:27, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Batternut, I'll link you to a previous example (using Google Web search hits rather than Google News search hits). Particular quote from an admin: "I'll agree with the chorus here that analyzing Google search results is an extreme example of OR (it's not even an analysis of a reliable primary source)." Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 10#Counting Google hits and dictionary entries to support a claim. Stickee (talk) 02:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with some of the comments in that discussion, I don't think that the admin's conclusion applies to the AMN "Other news sites have quoted..." case. The Daylight saving time case features "analyzing Google search results", whereas the AMN case does not, to my mind, involve analyzing. Batternut (talk) 09:06, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user Fylindfotberserk has just escalated all those issues from geography/culture to racism and spoiled all my discussion thread! I just wanted to tell you that NCZCC site is worth mentioning on North India page as it was earlier mentioned and it was there for years. Even look at the map available on North India, It talks about states in North central Cultural zone as well. And also there is no proper definition of "North Central India" as well, as it is considered to be a part of North India only. As you can notice it has componet states from NZCC as well, no other cultural zone have states form nzcc. And if this can't be there as it is a cultural site, then why is there nzcc used as primary reference? Why not just geological survey of India site, as this page is more about geographical location of north india and not cultural. And if cultural is used, it should be used a whole, because both north and north central are overalapping and are a part of region that makes North India in its entirety 103.212.158.108 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay So I have found one "Times of India" article which clearly says North Indian states as from Punjab to Bihar. Here's the link http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Marriages-last-the-longest-in-north-India-Maharashtra-least-in-northeast/articleshow/50618599.cms 103.212.158.108 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC) One more http://www.firstpost.com/economy/can-north-india-overtake-arrogant-south-in-growth-292855.html 103.212.158.108 (talk) 05:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again http://www.gounesco.com/festivals-north-india/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.212.158.108 (talk) 05:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out these links. The Times of India and the FirstPost articles are useful - I have just mentioned them in North India#Wider definition. The goUNESCO article however, even though well written, seems likely to be user content. Batternut (talk) 07:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Batternut. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, ARA News, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

1. edit the page
2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Winged Blades ^Godric 04:10, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Discussion moved to Talk:Hawar News Agency.) Batternut (talk) 17:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(2 comments from scope_creep moved to discussion at Talk:Hawar News Agency.) Batternut (talk) 08:33, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Hawar News Agency has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The article appears to be about an organization or web content, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. With the exception of primary sources the supplied sources are not about the subject. The sources do not confer notability. Fails WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hawar News Agency 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/Hawar News Agency 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have closed your RfC on talk:ISIL and reopend it as an RM because the requested moves process is the best one to use for requested moves. This is for several reasons:

1. Generally it is a shorter process so decisions are reached more quickly.
2. It tends to attract more editors who have an interest and expertise in page titles over and above those who lurk around the talk page of a specific article. An RfC is less likely to attract such expertise.
3. The process and closing of an RM is tailored made for moving pages. It includes a move review option for anyone thinks that the process had not been followed correctly.

I will post this explanation to the talk page of the article. -- PBS (talk) 11:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your efforts, but I am not requesting a move at this point - a move request needs a specific name to move the article to. Batternut (talk) 22:35, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in this edit The edits I made to Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Requested move 18 July 2017 are administrative edits I made this clear on the talk page:

If you revert my revert to your removal of my edits to the talk page I will take administrative action against you. -- PBS (talk) 06:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this notification carefully, it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

-- PBS (talk) 06:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, 1RR doesn't apply to the talk page, just to the article, but I accept that you can whack me with your GS admin mace for anything :-( Batternut (talk) 22:14, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to your most recent posting to my talk page. AFAICT not one admin has commented in the ANI section Unwelcome conversion of RfC to RM.

If you want me to changed back, you would do well to explain why you phrased you RfC as you did (not neutral) and specifically why the sentence "Note that this is an RFC, not a move request - the qualifier is still to-be-decided (TBD). If the consensus is to rename, then a subsequent discussion can choose the qualifier" does did not have the capacity to sow discord. It would also help if you explained why you decided to use biased language in the ANI section title "unwelcome conversion of RfC to RM". If you want support for other options then propose them for example, the mess could be closed and you can start a fresh RM.

So that every one can read it if you decide to reply then please do so in the relevant ANI section. -- PBS (talk) 07:30, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this edit. Needs further clarification.

Under the of general sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, will you agree:

1. Not to initiate an RfC to discuss the title of the article Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant;
2. That while you may initiate an ordinary section to discuss the title of the article, you will not do so more than once every six months;
3. That you may initiate an WP:RM to request a change in the article title, but only after at least six months have passed since the last RM.

If as requested I can close the current RM (others may object), then as a technical closure, it will not be considered a RM affecting number three above.

-- PBS (talk) 11:48, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, thanks for taking the time to spell out your position. I agree that six months between RMs is reasonable, provided they are sensible requests that gain a decent level of debate. I am currently of the opinion that, prior to another RM, a better-focussed and possibly rather technical discussion aimed purely at agreeing the current "common name" of the group would be worthwhile. Clearly such a discussion, if consensus reached, would have direct effect upon the raising of another RM. I will probably run the wording of any such discussion by you first; hoping not to appear Machiavellian or to sneak something under anybody's radar; and then raise it as a normal discussion on the ISIL talk page - unless you advise and I agree to using a different forum or mechanism. Batternut (talk) 15:32, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid conflicting outcomes as you envisaged at the ANI, a follow-on RM would be final, but only arguments other than common name would be considered. This should be spelled out clearly in the RM. Batternut (talk) 15:46, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(btw, I will on holiday in a few days time, and expect to be quiet for a month. Batternut (talk) 22:04, 22 July 2017 (UTC))[reply]

OK I'll take that as a yes. As there have been no objections (by any other editor) to the closure of the RfC/RM I will close it, and I will also close the ANI.

I can not control the input of other editors to an RM (nor would I want to), but you will have the option to use the "move review" if you think that the closer has given undue weight to opinions that are not supported by the WP:AT policy and its naming conventions.

You are now bound by the three conditions above. I will be adding notification of such to the general sanctions page.

-- PBS (talk) 14:57, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PBS: We agree a mutually acceptable way forward, and you list it under the GS Log of blocks and bans (and without the Minimum information of "what was done and the basis for doing it"). A "gentleman's agreement" should have sufficed (regardless of your gender). You might reconsider this action? Batternut (talk) 20:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, according to your source in the list of aviation incidents and accidents in the Syrian civil war you said that a drone was shot down over Syria, however according to your source the drone was shot down over Israel. Oscarm18 (talk) 02:09, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Oscarm18: The source (not mine) says near Quneitra in the DMZ between Syria and the Golan Heights. Batternut (talk) 07:50, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to give you the explanation that I think is due, I had a brain fart. There was a recent discussion and I misread the first part "duplicates Million-plus agglomerations in India" as related, hence referring to WP:TFD. I somehow didn't read the second part, "not suitable as navbar", which I totally agree with. Anyway, apologies for the extra work. --Muhandes (talk) 16:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We've all been there! Thanks. Batternut (talk) 16:18, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	Tertius
	Other 'faces include Molecular Dynamic and Holographic. After that it's Direct Neural Interfaces "CyberJack" and ultimately... PsiTech. Thereafter the human/machine interface becomes somewhat blurred... Rather like my crispy pixel gif! Brobof (talk) 10:22, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify my edit (the one you reverted) on the population of New York city, I was actually reverting what looked like an arbitrary change of the population to 10,550,405 at 11:24 on October 26. Up until that point, the population had been listed for some time as 8,550,405. For what it's worth, the linked NYT source from 2011 states a population of 8,175,133. However the NYC official website, nyc.gov states a population of 8,550,405 as of 2017. So it seems the population figure of 10,550,405 has no basis, while 8,550,405 does have a (albeit currently un-cited) reliable source. Ropo153 (talk) 21:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ropo153: Without any edit comment, your first update of just the figure looked pretty random, and it didn't match the citation. But now that you have found a source to match the figure, that's good work - thanks! Batternut (talk) 23:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Battermut. I noticed you reverted these edits. My apologies of course if it conveyed the impression that I was archiving our discussion, but that wasn't the intention. I wanted to make the discussions concisely structured, that's why wrote "Extended discussion" within it, changing the "archiving" message. But again, my apologies if it conveyed otherwise. Thanks, Lourdes 00:36, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Batternut. I noticed you've done some constructive editing recently. Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. User:Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 07:05, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More options have been added to the Rfc at Charles, Prince of Wales. You many want to put that article on your watchlist :) GoodDay (talk) 16:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the reason why I chose States over Zonal Councils is because the latter is NOT a census-defined entity. The census data essentially pertains to states, districts and cities/towns/villages/UAs – UAs have nothing to do with "administration". —Vensatry _(talk) 08:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moved discussion to Talk:Khulna#Population figures. Batternut (talk) 09:19, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I believe you reverted my edit on South Africa due to clarity on the subject of South African English. Please see https://sadev.co.za/content/how-correctly-format-currency-south-africa that clearly explains using many references the style used in South African English. 1 234 567,00 not 1,234,567.00 or 12,4 million not 12.4 million. Please respect this. I think this is proof enough. Please check what changes you reverted and put them back. I am an English speaker from South Africa and I can assure you from personal experience that this is what is done here. Since this is an article strongly associated with South Africa, it should follow South African conventions.

Thanks Waddie96 (talk) 14:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC) Waddie96 (talk) 14:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Waddie96: It's an interesting question. Do you know of other South Africa associated articles that use gaps for number grouping? I think there's a good discussion to be had here, if it hasn't been discussed before. Am just wondering where/which forum would be best. I'll get on this shortly... Batternut (talk) 18:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South Africa#Should South Africa articles use "continental system" numbers?. Batternut (talk) 10:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The follow-up discussion for your proposal (here) has received a rather comprehensive rebuttal from an MoS old hand. Batternut (talk) 22:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to have accidentally deleted your comment... but I don't understand why you didn't keep mine as well when you re-inserted yours. --Macrakis (talk) 21:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There were some other changes, maybe someone had done some thread archiving, which you seemed to have clobbered, so I just hit the quick-and-easy rollback button... Batternut (talk) 00:37, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I do not work twice. It is easy to delete someone else's work. The data is old, old, irrelevant. Eurostat 2011 it is absolute useless. I wanted to make some updates, but I changed my plans. I don't care about the subject. The page-site is uninteresting with the ancient data. Update you, of course...European cities. Thanks and good luck with the work ^-^. --MIRAIL (talk) 14:17, 7 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MIHAIL (talk • contribs) [reply]

It can be tedious I know, but if you don't provide sources for the figures you give, they fail the WP:VERIFIABILITY policy. It is part of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia - "all articles must strive for verifiable accuracy". Batternut (talk) 12:27, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just calculate... India's population is 1.3 billion and 41% speak Hindi saying their mother tongue. So Hindi speakers are more than 500 millions plus Urdu speakers. Abhay Agrawal (talk) 05:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do be aware of the WP policy on Wikipedia:No original research - one has to ask when and where did that 41% figure come from; and does it apply to the current population of India? Batternut (talk) 08:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

-> please keep conversation together at User talk:CSM007. Batternut (talk) 09:00, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that "Great Britain" was called exactly that, and never "United Kingdom" as a name. The name of "United Kingdom" was invented in 1800, taking effect in 1801. If you read the Treaty of Union and the Acts of Union, you'll see they use capital letters for a huge number of nouns, and even for some adjectives - for instance, for the term "One Kingdom". Some non-academic sources misunderstand or misrepresent the facts of this, sometimes misunderstanding, sometimes disingenuously relying on, the use of "United Kingdom" as a description in 1707. No one has come up with any instances of "United Kingdom" being used as a name in the 18th century, but a negative like that can't be proved. It isn't helpful for the Wikipedia page to fudge this and mislead people Moonraker (talk) 20:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message Moonraker, it is an interesting observation. The implication is that descriptions "Kingdom of Great Britain" and "United Kingdom of Great Britain" have no great significance, as the adjective 'Kingdom' and adjectival phrase 'United Kingdom' are merely capitalized out of a older typographic standard. Thus it is incorrect for us now to interpret those passages as alternate names, which is rather implied by the article as it is. It makes sense to me, but I think we would need to cite someone else pointing it out to avoid OR. If no such citation can be found, my approach would be to remove that passage completely, ie The 1707 Acts of Union declared that the kingdoms of England and Scotland were "United into One Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain", though the new state is also referred to in the Acts as the "Kingdom of Great Britain", "United Kingdom of Great Britain" and "United Kingdom". Batternut (talk) 22:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be helpful. I strongly suspect the term "Kingdom of Great Britain" has been invented on Wikipedia, to disambiguate from the island of Great Britain, but it's hard to fathom and I may be wrong. All hits for "Kingdom of Great Britain" on Jstor and Google books before about 2000 turn out to be for "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland", or Northern Ireland. At first sight, it doesn't seem like a big deal, but some confusion can happen if the 18th-century Great Britain starts to get mixed up with the 19th-century and later United Kingdom, including all or part of Ireland. It does happen. Moonraker (talk) 23:01, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, when nominating stuff for deletion, there's a general expectation (as the instructions say), to notify the creator of the page and/or substantial contributors. Thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 15:34, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 February 25#Pahari languages is not a deletion discussion, it's about changing the target of a redirect. Apologies though, if it has caused offence. Batternut (talk) 23:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it has not caused offence, but after seeing your AfD and then the RfD I thought you might not be aware of the general expectation. – Uanfala (talk) 23:31, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I'd forgotten (already!) the AfD of Pahari language - the raising of that was a response to your revert of my revert of that article, so it seemed obvious that you would see the AfD, which indeed you did. I used Twinkle to raise the AfD, which notified the creator at User talk:Bkag009. I take the point though that major contributors may no longer be watching the page. Batternut (talk) 23:40, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to be honest weren't in good faith but in ignorance as the article itself or my edits that appear in the article didn't have any indic script. The link rather leads to the section of the article which is in a different language but is still written in Roman script which you probably didn't bother to check. That section of that article shows the "demonyms" used by the locals themselves in Roman script. Goans don't call themselves goan in their own language.103.48.58.226 (talk) 18:44, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, this edit, you are quite right. My revert comment should have been "Not English, and refs WP:CIRCULAR." Batternut (talk) 20:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary also applies. Your other edits remain entirely welcome of course, afaik. And please do consider creating an account - it's very quick, and makes it easy for you to keep an eye on your favourite articles. Batternut (talk) 21:04, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you deleted the Kokani & Marathi & Portuguese demonyms for Goans which someone else had added but kept the terms "indiacatos" & "mestiços". The people of Goa are indeed called Govekar, I know that because I'm Kokani myself & Goan is a word almost never used by locals unless they're speaking in English which means it's a foreign word used when speaking a foreign language. Mentioning the local words for a particular demonym is in nearly every Wikipedia article & it should be mentioned cause people reading it need to know what terms or words locals use to describe themselves in their own language. Why would you disagree with that? My previous edit had a link to the goan kokani article's subsection that mentioned the demonyms in English, Marathi & Kokani but later I just wrote that those words were mentioned in the subsection to of the main article itself but you removed that. I'm getting a feeling you're being rather one sided against Marathi & Kokani language which is inappropriate cause you kept the two Portuguese terms as it is.103.48.58.226 (talk) 06:46, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary? Look at France, or Germany - under demonym does it list francais, or deutsch? No. This is the English language wikipedia, it is written in English. Consider starting a discussion at Talk:Goa and build a consensus if you want to pursue this. Repeated edits counter to Wikipedia policy will be seen as disruptive editing. Batternut (talk) 23:06, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's probably a good case under NOTDICT for removing indiacatos too, and perhaps mestiços (although mestizo is used in English). I have nothing against Marathi, Kokani or any other language, indeed I wish them and their wikis well. Regarding other articles with foreign language demonyms, feel free to tell me and I will fix them too. Or indeed you could do it. Batternut (talk) 10:56, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see as many wikipedia pages as probably you do cause edits or whatever it is that you do on wikipedia isn't necessarily for me as hobby. I only remember a few countries mostly cause they play Cricket I checked there pages a few times like Australia is not just Australian, NZ is not just New Zealander, Wales is not just Welsh, etc. I'm sure you'll be able to find more since that's what you do. What is your issue with the article describing in it's population section the different words or demonyms used by locals? Why is that so hard for you to accept that such information could be given in wikipedia? Being English as the language of the article does it means that even small information like Goans are called Govekar in their own language isn't allowed? Wikipedia is supposed to be for gaining information including those small ones that you'd get from first hand sources. I did read that link you sent & may be you could tell me exactly which section forbids mentioning of such info even in the section of the article of locals if it's not in English in case I missed it. Is that how knowledge spreads? Restricting everything that's not English? It's not like an entire para or sentence was being written in a different language, it's just a few words regarding demonym. No one really uses Goan in Goa or outside as much unless it's English speaking elites cause even English speaking locals say Govekar. This seems more about arrogance of some anglophones than any policy but if there's any that I missed that forbids mentioning any word of foreign language in giving any extra info on wikipedia which I wrongfully thought was for getting info on different topics & subjects you can point it out specifically so I could know.103.48.58.226 (talk) 18:59, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As you feel strongly about this you should start a discussion at Talk:Goa - with some evidence on the use of Govekar in English works you may be able to convince enough people. The Australia article lists Aussie but that is a very commonly used colloquialism, as is Kiwi for New Zealander. Cymry on the Wales article looks wrong to me - I'll look into it. Batternut (talk) 20:57, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It surprised me, but Cymry is in my old Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary. Neither Govekar nor Goenkar are though. Batternut (talk) 21:04, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it is cause Wales is part of UK so it could be in an English dictionary. There are many words in my Oxford dictionary new editions & many aren't that are not of English origin (Cymry isn't there in any of my Oxford dictionaries). Just because a word is in the dictionary or didn't manage to get in the dictionary doesn't validates or invalidates the authenticity of a word or it's legitimate existence or use. It only means makers of that dictionary knew those words or didn't. Is the word Goan in it too? It's not in my Oxford dictionaries. Look at Monaco or Brussels or Quebec - under demonym does it list Monégasque or Bruxellois(e) & Brusselse or Québécois & Québécoise? Yes. I just looked for a few & found some. There will be more cause it's part of basic information about the people of any given place & it's validity isn't dependent on your dictionary nor it's use in English language especially since the native people aren't anglophones. About your earlier comment, I read again & realised it was quite arrogant may be you didn't meant it that way but now you're saying a Welsh language demonym is valid according to you cause you see it in your dictionary. I think you forgot "This is the English language wikipedia, it is written in English", your words. You can keep your above mentioned well wish with yourself cause I don't think it's needed. A non English word inducted in some English language dictionary doesn't make it English which I'm sure you'd agree. Why not check yourself online if these words are really valid or not. My earlier edit had a link for Govekar to a dictionary but may be you prefer only the one you have in your possession which is unfortunate cause I've never heard of it so I can't be sure of it's quality. No one would really use Cymry in English but it's in your dictionary to give that extra knowledge to you that such a word is used in the local language to describe it's people so you can learn something new that you'd never learn from purely isolationist use of English that you're advocating. So, is Goan in your dictionary or you'd make it your exception if it's not? I always heard wikipedia isn't a good source of information although I never cared about it before but I understand that now. Then I'll simply use different sources to read more often instead of wikipedia everytime where the info may be the same but without oversmart anglophile randomly anti non English language police trolls cause I saw you showed the same behaviour regarding Maharashtriya in the Maharashtra article.103.48.58.226 (talk) 21:42, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear 103.48.58.226, your time and effort would be much better spent arguing your case at Talk:Goa. Do you really believe what you have argued above? If so, start a discussion about it at Talk:Goa - click on "New Section", give a subject/headline such as "Other demonyms", and put your case in the big text box. Your voice will be heard there. Batternut (talk) 12:32, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did. But why haven't you removed those above mentioned demonyms yet? You even removed Maharashtriya from Maharashtra but not the ones I mentioned above. I honestly feel your behaviour really doesn't appear constructive nor right.103.48.58.226 (talk) 07:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, they were not test edits. I live in Kolkata. So, I know the facts. The corrected old figures to current ones. (like, the metro length has increased from 25km) Saha 07:01, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

@Arnabsaha2212: Thanks, that looks like a fine cuppa! You may know Kolkata very well, but when did you last personally measure the length of the metro? I reverted your edit because the source cited gives 25.1 km as the length - if you noticed a more recent announcement with an updated figure you should replace the citation at the same time as entering the new information.

Alas I have also had to revert your latest edit as it fell foul of the decision made some time ago to avoid the use of Indic scripts in infoboxes and leads - read about it at WP:NOINDICSCRIPTS. Batternut (talk) 09:23, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Kolkata Metro is a rapid transit system serving the Kolkata metropolitan area in the Indian state of West Bengal. The network currently consists of one operational line of 27.22 km from Noapara to Kavi Subhash.

The length was 25 km before the extension. The line was extended in 2013 and it became 27 km. To show you I have copied the text from the Wikipedia page of Kolkata metro.

Saha 05:30, 24 March 2018 (UTC)Arnabsaha2212

Alas again, quoting wikipedia falls foul of yet another policy - WP:Circular! Anyway, Kolkata Metro Line 1 says in the lead that the line has a "total distance of 25.30 km" (though elsewhere it says 27.39 km which is similar to your figure. Neither of those articles seems to have a good source for this information, and not on their Bangla wiki pages either as far as I can tell. If you find a good source for a 27km figure please mention it. Non-English language sources are usable, although English sources are preferred. Batternut (talk) 15:54, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	thank you for your message, i am paul saad sorry for any inconvenience cause by adding the links. if you need to contact me i am in johannesburg. kartaba@yahoo.com Cksaad (talk) 15:09, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to User talk:Geografi § February 2018

Moved to User talk:Syed Abid haider § Adding Kendriya Vidyalaya entries for all towns

 – Batternut (talk) 20:01, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The news from ARA News is not good (the problem is that there is no news). :( It was a nice alternative to Rudaw.net, for non-Kurdish-speaking readers like me. I don't have any info apart from what I've used in the update switching to past tense. Using archive.org is only a weak source for the final (most recent?) ARA News publication; maybe you can find an article explaining why ARA News stopped publishing (internal personal conflicts, funding stopped, infiltration by security services from country X opposed to Kurdish self-determination, sabotage by the Venusians who filmed the Apollo 11 landing in a Martian film studio, ... - speculation ranging from ordinary to outlandish). Boud (talk) 22:42, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, no news is not good news - for a news service. It looks very dead-parrot, but I can't find out what happened. Searching for news about a news site is tricky though, difficult to filter out the chaff. Batternut (talk) 16:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete or edit on my Wikipedia page Kendriya Vidyalaya Maharajganj

 Thanks  Syed Abid haider (talk) 02:28, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Syed Abid haider: you need to read the policy Wikipedia:Ownership of content. It says:

No one "owns" content (including articles or any page at Wikipedia).

Batternut (talk) 08:32, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In this ANI section - LouisAragon (talk) 21:16, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the region is London, not Greater London, which is the name of the county. So what would be the best way to state this in the lead? IWI (chat) 09:49, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:LEADSENTENCE advises us that the lead should tell the reader what the subject of the article is. The subject of the Greater London article, its title, is is "Greater London", not "London". There is another article for London. What is wrong with "Greater London is a region of England which forms the administrative boundaries of London, as well as a county..."? Batternut (talk) 12:20, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The region is called London or London region, the county is called Greater London (not including the City of London). MOS:LEADSENTENCE states "where possible" and WP:IGNOREALLRULES states that if a rule inhibits your ability to improve Wikipedia, ignore it. It is incorrect to state "Greater London is a region..." because it's not, so we should ignore the first part of MOS:LEADSENTENCE in this case. IWI (chat) 18:34, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also consider " Use the first sentence of the article to provide relevant information that is not already given by the title of the article" from MOS:LEADSENTENCE. IWI (chat) 18:37, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you put your arguments in a new discussion on at Talk:Greater London - if people agree with you, we can change the lead. Good luck! Batternut (talk) 19:26, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, thanks. IWI (chat) 19:28, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If there is too little interest in your suggestion as put at Talk:Greater London#Lead Change, consider advertising it (suggested tangentially at WP:MULTI), or perhaps even start an WP:RFC. You will need to be fairly specific in your proposal, ie "Change the lead to ...." It seems to me that there might be other issues involved, which I shall mention at Talk:Greater London. Let's keep the discussion in that one place. Batternut (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish is one of the main and most important languages of Europe. Why is not included as one of the main?

In the Wikipedia of other continents like South America are named more than 5 languages, including even the French that barely has speakers. JamesOredan (talk) 22:51, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Already explained at User talk:JamesOredan#July 2018. Batternut (talk) 23:55, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support re the deleted awards and decorations from Ernst Röhm's page which two editors have deemed as "trivial". There wasn't even an Awards and Decorations section until I created it, yet instead of a simple thanks, I've been stalked on a number of pages by one editor in particular and another on one page deleting whole streams of added content by me. I've asked politely for guidelines on what wiki pages I'm allowed to add links to, yet no reply, just more deletions and yesterday a very aggressive message from one of them about posting "trivial" awards. I've asked for a list of so-called trivial awards from these two editors, yet they refuse to let me know which ones I'm allowed to add for content. How am I supposed to know what is trivial and unacceptable and what is not trivial and acceptable? What is the point of having a wiki page on a particular topic if I'm not allowed to add a link to it? What function does the page then serve if nobody is allowed to add a link to it? I've found it very frustrating and frankly bordering on bullying behaviour and I don't know what to do. Another editor agreed with me but my content keeps getting deleted and I keep getting warnings. See my talk page! Furthermore, there are plenty of other pages that have these very same awards and decorations in their content, why is it okay for some pages to have these links and not others? I realise I'm not a senior editor, I don't see why that makes what I'm doing as wrong, and in the words of one editor, vandalising a wiki page. Troy von Tempest (talk) 10:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, because you are withdrawing the modifications from regions of Kazakhstan, returning to the modifications. Are they Russian or what? Memoanimax1998 (talk) 07:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you're referring to your removal of Cyrillic from articles such as Atyrau Region. Can I suggest you start a new discussion section at Talk:Atyrau Region where we can put our opinions on the use of Cyrillic, implied Russian influence etc? Discussion is always more productive than edit warring. Wikipedia:Edit warring has some advice. Batternut (talk) 08:08, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please help in making babel Information are here

• mni 0 ꯃꯁꯤ ꯁꯤꯖꯤꯟꯅꯔꯤꯕ ꯃꯤꯑꯣꯏ ꯑꯁꯤ ꯃꯤꯇꯩꯂꯣꯟ ꯀꯔꯤꯁꯨ ꯈꯪꯕ ꯉꯝꯗꯦ ꯫
• mni 1 ꯃꯁꯤ ꯁꯤꯖꯤꯟꯅꯔꯤꯕ ꯃꯤꯑꯣꯏ ꯑꯁꯤꯅ ꯃꯤꯇꯩꯂꯣꯟ ꯁꯤ ꯑꯔꯥꯏꯕ ꯋꯥꯍꯪ ꯅꯠꯇꯔꯒ ꯑꯆꯝꯕ ꯑꯌꯤꯕ ꯄꯣꯠꯁꯛꯇꯤ ꯈꯪꯕ ꯉꯝꯃꯤ ꯫
• mni 2 ꯃꯁꯤ ꯁꯤꯖꯤꯟꯅꯔꯤꯕ ꯃꯤꯑꯣꯏ ꯑꯁꯤꯅ ꯃꯤꯇꯩꯂꯣꯟ ꯁꯤ ꯑꯆꯝꯕ ꯈꯟꯅ ꯅꯩꯅꯕꯒꯤ ꯃꯇꯥꯡꯗ ꯁꯦꯝꯒꯠꯄ ꯉꯝꯃꯤ ꯫
• mni 3 ꯃꯁꯤ ꯁꯤꯖꯤꯟꯅꯔꯤꯕ ꯃꯤꯑꯣꯏ ꯑꯁꯤꯅ ꯃꯤꯇꯩꯂꯣꯟ ꯑꯁꯤ ꯌꯥꯝ ꯁꯣꯏꯍꯟꯗꯅ ꯏꯕꯗꯤ ꯉꯝꯃꯤ ꯫
• mni 4 ꯃꯁꯤ ꯁꯤꯖꯤꯟꯅꯔꯤꯕ ꯃꯤꯑꯣꯏ ꯑꯁꯤꯅ ꯃꯤꯇꯩꯂꯣꯟ ꯁꯤ ꯏꯃꯥꯂꯣꯟꯒꯤ ꯃꯑꯣꯡꯒꯨꯝ ꯋꯥ-ꯉꯥꯡꯕ ꯉꯝꯕ (ꯑꯗꯨꯝ ꯑꯣꯏꯅꯃ. ꯑꯩꯒꯤ ꯏꯃꯥꯂꯣꯟꯗꯤ ꯅꯠꯇꯕ) ꯫
• ‍mni 5 ꯃꯁꯤ ꯁꯤꯖꯤꯟꯅꯔꯤꯕ ꯃꯤꯑꯣꯏ ꯑꯁꯤꯅ ꯃꯤꯇꯩꯂꯣꯟ ꯁꯤ ꯁꯤꯟꯐꯝ ꯑꯃꯥ ꯑꯣꯏꯅ ꯍꯩꯔꯕ ꯑꯃꯗꯤ ꯈꯨꯃꯥꯡ ꯆꯥꯎꯁꯤꯟꯅ ꯌꯥꯝ ꯍꯩꯅ ꯑꯇꯣꯞꯄ ꯂꯣꯟꯗ ꯍꯟꯗꯣꯛꯄ ꯉꯝꯕ ꯫
• mni N ꯃꯁꯤ ꯁꯤꯖꯤꯟꯅꯔꯤꯕ ꯃꯤꯑꯣꯏ ꯑꯁꯤꯅ ꯃꯤꯇꯩꯂꯣꯟ ꯁꯤ ꯏꯃꯥꯂꯣꯟ ꯑꯣꯏꯖꯕ ꯑꯃꯁꯨꯡ ꯄꯟꯊꯩ-ꯄꯥꯎꯔꯧ ꯂꯣꯏꯅ ꯈꯪꯕ ꯍꯩꯕ ꯫

• For Meetei Mayek font

Incubator:Wp/mni/ꯃꯔꯨꯑꯣꯏꯕ ꯂꯥꯃꯥꯏ

• See also

Meetei language

We used " ꯫ " as full stop in writing an article in Meetei Mayek

Awangba Mangang (talk) 18:28, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I wouldn't know where to begin. And these characters don't display for me. Good luck! Batternut (talk) 06:53, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Greek alphabet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Keraia (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) 07:30, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Donald Wolf. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 01:01, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon 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 (see the guidelines on the notability of music-related topics). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

This draft does not appear to indicate which of the musical notability criteria is satisfied. If at least one of the criteria is satisfied, please revise this draft appropriately, with a reliable source, if necessary stating on the talk page which criterion is met, and resubmit.

You may ask for advice about the musical notability criteria at the Teahouse.

If the subject satisfies any of the musical notability criteria, please state which criterion in an AFC comment, or on the talk page of this draft, when resubmitting.

This draft has been declined because of notability concerns. This draft should be resubmitted by addressing the notability concerns in AFC comments or on the talk page of the draft. Do not resubmit this draft without explaining how it satisfies a notability criterion. Do not simply add references, or make minor changes, without explaining how it satisfies a notability criterion.

This does not mean that the subject of the draft has been found not to be notable. It does mean that this draft, as written, does not establish notability. Notability should be established in the text of the draft, as well as by references.

You may ask for advice about the notability criteria at the Teahouse.

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.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Donald Wolf and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Donald Wolf, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 01:22, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Batternut! 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! Robert McClenon (talk) 01:22, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Azure-Te (Paris Blues), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:43, 26 June 2021 (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) 00:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Batternut. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Donald Wolf, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 12:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:List of common misconceptions on a "Language and linguistics" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:30, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Pound sterling on a "Language and linguistics" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:30, 27 August 2022 (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) 00:41, 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) 00:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Media Matters for America on a "Language and linguistics" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:30, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]