Not all the DSDS seasons have templates. Kingjeff (talk) 23:12, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have a bunch of articles that need to be worked on. They're listed on my user page. Feel free to work on any. Kingjeff (talk) 00:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2012–13 Hannover 96 season, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Naldo, Daniel Williams and Andreas Beck (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 14:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am familiar with threshold of originality, and if you feel that this image falls below the minimum to be copyrightable, then feel free to bring it up for discussion at WP:MCQ. The use of logos on dewiki has nothing to do with their use here on enwiki. Until/unless there is consensus that the image is too simple to qualify for protection it must not be displayed on the talk page. VernoWhitney (talk) 02:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sorry. However, do you know anything about the logo of Nottingham Forest? They once won the European Cup and the fitting logo from that time shall be added in the German Article de:Liste der Fußball-Europapokalsieger der Männer, I already collected the logos for the European Cup, but there are still two logos missin, Celtic and Forest.--SamWinchester000 (talk) 13:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that I can't help you with. I enjoy football, but logo history is a bit out of my wheelhouse. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't add interwiki links to articles as you did to List of heads of state of Mexico. Interwiki links should no longer be added to articles. The should be added at Wikidata. Bgwhite (talk) 06:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your correct edit at Valmir Sulejmani, was my mistake puting Werder Bremen in place of 1. FC Nürnberg for his debut. I created the page of him cause he is my compatriot from Albania since he became a professional player mading his debut. --Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk) 23:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thanks. I'm sorry, I didn't notice it earlier as I am usually in the German Wikipedia.--SamWinchester000 (talk) 16:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jack Lawrence (actor), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gent. 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, 21 August 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) 16:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In case you're unaware, the conflict of interest guidelines and policies have changed quite a bit in recent years. If you have any financial conflicts, you need to limit your editing and may need to declare your interest. --Ronz (talk) 01:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...? I'm a bit puzzled. I don't think that a 20 year old German student has much to do with the porn industry or what your suggestion might be. I've been registered since 2012 and usually work at football or 19th-20th century history articles in German Wikipedia. It's actually the first time in years I made some more edits in the English version although originally, they only should have been very small... --SamWinchester000 (talk) 20:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. Sorry for any confusion. As anyone can take up editing for pay, I wanted to make sure you are aware of the changes related to paid editing and financial conflicts of interest. --Ronz (talk) 15:08, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dannii Minogue, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sidney. 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) 16:38, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have linked Nitsche's German Wiki to the Russell Simmons article. You may create an English version if you like. WriterWithNoName (talk) 14:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propably not. I don't think that I'm able to create too many sentences in proper, lexikal English, especially in that lifestyle-field which is not easy to compose in an article, at least with my rather different interests. So I wanted to show the need of an article to someone else. However, – being aware of the possibility to overdo things in red-top press – I wanted to show you quotes from the first article I get shown from Google in Germany ;): „[Headline:] That's what she really thinks about her body [Headline finished] For GALA Hana Nitsche is talking the first time about her crass figure criticism and is reporting from her life as internationally sought-after model. / Hana Nitsche has been an also internationally sought-after model since her participation at ,Germany's Next Topmodel‘ in 2007, is worldwide walking over the Runway. In the GALA interview she's reporting about her job at the ,New York Fashion Week‘, revealing her fashion tips 2016 and for the first time talking about her recent hard figure criticism. [...]“

OK. I was curious as to what this was all about. I don't know who Nitsche is, however, the Simmons article has been criticized for its promotional nature, which is why I am keeping an eye on it. My threshold for notability is higher than most other Wikipedians, and I could not find anything on the English language version of Google that would compel me to create a corresponding article. That being said, if you can establish her notability, I would clean up the article. WriterWithNoName (talk) 15:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can of course understand that you don't know Nitsche. I don't know her too much, as well, (but others do and e.g. already asked on her talk page why their hero doesn't have a better photo in Wiki ;). I can agree with you that Wikipedia has too many useless articles but for the nonce I'm pretty sure about her (en-compatible) national notability. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 15:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While every television series is worthy of a Wiki, individual episodes typically are not. Do you understand the comparison? WriterWithNoName (talk) 16:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I do. Just as I said I agree that Wiki has already too much trash. Btw, the German version is usually criticizing the English one for its standard and deleting much more articles than here ;) --SamWinchester000 (talk) 16:27, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can actually not believe that e. g. a single season performance of a football club can have an article here. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 16:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lisa Sparxxx, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Redondo Beach. 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) 10:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SamWinchester000. 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]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited State of Buenos Aires, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle of Cepeda. 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) 10:47, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I declined your technical request to move this to BiBi Jones, per MOS:TM and WP:TITLETM. We don't generally do capitalization within the words of a title unless there is a strong reason to do so. A few exceptions are given in the WP:MOS. If you still think this should be moved, you can open a {{Requested move}}. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Agenda 2010, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Left. 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) 10:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit, the Oregon Supreme Court article says that Babcock was the first judge (although the list article considers him second after Townsend), but it doesn't say he was the first judge of the Provisional Government, which didn't exist until 1843. It also says "Albert E. Wilson was the first judge chosen as the Supreme Judge under this new government". So no, we don't have one consistent answer. We have three conflicting answers.

To keep it simple, I reemphasize the original contradiction: Ira Babcock's infobox says he was the first judge OF THE PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT, not simply the first judge. But List of Oregon judges (the link given to support the infobox claim) says Albert E. Wilson was the first judge of the provisional government, not Babcock. Either Babcock or Wilson was first, not both. So that is a contradiction right there, without needing to get into how the Oregon Supreme Court article supports parts of both stories.

Even if we argue that Babcock was a judge but not a supreme judge for a time after Wilson didn't serve, it's still wrong to justify calling Babcock the first, by linking to a list article that doesn't mention Babcock in that position. It would also be inconsistent to list him as 1st because we consider him an un-supreme judge under Wilson, and then 3th [sic] because he was the 3rd supreme judge. Art LaPella (talk) 20:01, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The provisional government was already formed in 1841. It only wasn't complete until 1843 because of the dispute over a governor or a looser government. However, its judicial branch - which has always been planned as part of the government right from the beginning, never as an unconnected Judge - was already complete a bit earlier. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 02:38, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and Wilson has definitely not been the first. When someone doesn't accept his election into an office, he won't have hold that office for any second. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 02:44, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so Babcock's article is right and List of Oregon judges is wrong. Since you've studied it more, I suggest you change the list article to match. It does need to match, especially since it's linked directly from the corresponding part of Babcock's infobox. Art LaPella (talk) 03:02, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, as I said before I suggest the current list article to correctly show the fact that it had been a fluent development, but I will change it if that's important to you. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 14:37, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find the previous offer to edit the list article, but anyway please do. For instance: adding the sentence "Thus Babcock can be considered the first Provisional Government Supreme Judge." would help explain things for anyone coming from Babcock's infobox. Art LaPella (talk) 23:58, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Improving Babcock's article might also be well as a search for sources like [1] or [2] (Chapter XVII) shows that Babcock did not only have judicial duties but in fact had to govern the country himself until they would agree on a government form in the future. He could even have been elected as a Governor. However, as the French Canadians had their own candidate and finally did not want a governor position the English Americans improvised and made Babcock Supreme Judge instead. As nobody had any copy of the New York laws, Babcok could actually make law and judge as he wanted. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 13:41, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me. I typically limit myself to proofreading. Once again, my only objection was that "1st and 3rd Supreme judge of the Provisional Government" links to a list showing Babcock under "Pre-Provisional Government" and not under "Provisional Government" (except as 3rd). I'll be happy to add my explanatory sentence and move on, if it's OK with you. Art LaPella (talk) 16:47, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that I stick too long with the articles I occasionally read about. The only reason why I'm dealing with this topic is that I've read the List of Governors of California where Peter H. Burnett did not have any previous office, but I found that Oregon Supreme Judge office and then wanted to fill it in his infobox which lead me to the only Supreme Judge, where a number had already been given. That made me edit all 6 Supreme Judge articles and go much deeper into it than I've ever wanted. :) However, I've already improved a few things in Champoeg Meetings and - through your motivation - in List of Oregon judges, which is a success. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 19:27, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Art LaPella (talk) 03:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When somebody reverts you, discuss on the article talk page per WP:BOLD. Please don't edit war and don't keep restoring your edits. I don't think it's significant to include notes beneath singles saying that they were on two different albums and re-released; this is standard procedure for singles. Thank you. Ss112 13:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, per your edit to Pocketful of Sunshine, it is MOS:MUSIC-related precedent to only use the earliest release date in the infobox, and per Template:Track listing: "Generally, later releases or in secondary markets, reissues, on compilations, etc., should only be included in the body of the article." Ss112 13:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not edit war. I was not the one to use the revert button, which too many users think they can play with, as soon as they see something they don't like. You know, that this function is only for the deletion of vandalism? If you see harmless improvements that you don't like, which are not categorically meant to destroy (ergo not vandalism), you're invited to express your objections and inspire a discussion and not to revert. Reverting good faith edits is vandalism, I guess you should know that? So far, regarding your advice.

I've thoroughly and differently explained two edits, did adapt it by leaving out (helpfully clarifying) album years, thereby reacting on the dogmatic and cosmetic main criticism (while the other point that the single was promotional and only part of one album did not make any sense), and not nearly doing the same edit. That's it. Your allegations were not necessary to keep me from edit warring, something I would never ever have done. I don't even know when I've misused the revert button the last time. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 14:49, 13 October 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]

Hello, SamWinchester000. 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]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Central Intelligence Agency Office of Inspector General, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Patricia Lewis (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) 09:07, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited FremantleMedia, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages UFA and CLT (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have reverted your edit since it seems to be based on a misunderstanding. From 1871 to 1945 the official name of Germany was "Deutsches Reich", which literally means "German realm" (from a common Germanic word that in slightly varying forms still exists in several other Germanic languages, including Swedish, where the word is "rike", as in the official name of Sweden, "Kungariket Sverige"). If there's a need to specify what kind of realm it is the title of the ruler is then added in front of "Reich", for example "Königreich" for a kingdom and "Kaiserreich" for an empire (i.e. with an emperor as monarch; there is also an alternative word for empire: "Kaisertum"). For practical reasons the time period "Deutsches Reich" existed, i.e. 1871-1945, is divided into three periods with different names in English, "German Empire" for 1871-1918, "Weimar Republic" for 1918-1933 and "German Reich" for 1933-1945, but those names were never official names for Germany. Cheers... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:23, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2018 German government crisis, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Christian Social Union and Christian Democratic Union (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SamWinchester000. 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]

Thanks for uploading File:Sociedad Gimnástica Española.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:39, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Otto Nerz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Football manager (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) 08:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Random House Tower, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Real Deal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:03, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For your recent edit, can you please leave a footnote explaining it, such as using {{efn}}? Thank you. —GoldRingChip 17:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Canadian Authors Association (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Brian Moore, Elizabeth Hay, Fred Stenson, Charlotte Gray, James Houston and Goran Simić

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hermann Scheer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Party of Democratic Socialism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to 2020 New Hampshire Democratic presidential primary, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. There is a WP:CONSENSUS for candidate infobox inclusion, established at Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries#RfC on infobox inclusion criteria for candidates. You definitely shouldn't have removed candidates from the results table—you didn't provide any justification for that. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 22:21, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. 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.

― Tartan357 ^Talk 22:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:30, 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) 00:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been removing section tags within the results sections of some 2020 election articles. This is unnecessary and breaks things. These tags do not change the appearance of the articles they are in. Removing them causes other articles to display an error message. Thanks. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 16:45, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, however it's rather annoying that these tags make for unnecessary huge empty spaces in the original article. Yet, there is a solution, and this is to leave out empty paragraphs in the editing, then we get normal paragraphs without huge empty spaces. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 15:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you adding candidates to infoboxes that don't meet the 5% popular vote requirement while also removing those that do from other articles? Without edit summaries, there does not appear to be any rhyme or reason to this. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 00:35, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's a simple reason, nobody in the whole political media world cares for the completely unsuccessful fourth-placed candidate of a party primary, far away from winning any delegate, at a stage of the race when third- or fourth-placed candidates have already lost the race as they have lost any relevant political momentum with their third- or fourth-place finish. The only primaries in the American world where media still cares about more than the two front-runners are those preceding Super Tuesday, as they are crowded, have nearly all declared candidates still running, include early hopefuls either winning or losing their "hopeful" status, are the first real "evaluation" of several candidates and their remaining chances, and a third, fourth or maybe even fifth place finishing does not necessarily mean immediate failure and could still be turned around (like Biden did). That's why I added Yang to the Iowa infobox because he had been a huge national hopeful with a huge downfall in Iowa, and Steyer to the New Hampshire infobox because New Hampshire primaries are known for being heavily crowded. A third or fourth place on Super Tuesday however is virtually Game Over, so I see no point in listing candidates that receive no media exposure for their irrelevant finishing, having both no delegates in that state AND also having been far away from winning any in that state.

A) Infoboxes were invented for the purpose of giving a very much trimmed down overview and summary, they're not meant to be an excessive listing of almost every fact that happened, and as such it is absurd to overblow them with persons that gained virtually nothing (popular vote in an individual primary race is completely useless; especially when it is a little fraction and far away from winning the price of a single delegate it does not bear any political capital). B) Articles and their infoboxes should reflect the perception of the general public of a specific issue and not follow sanctioned static provisions that completely ignore the real word outside. Noone could ever convince me that a fourth-place finish in American Samoa with a participating electorate of around 200 voters merits an infobox inclusion and merits the unneccessary explosion of a very little article. Infoboxes are meant to summarise an article, not unneccessarily enlarge it. That's why actually Wikipedia rules say that the typical biography article infobox for example should only be used when they are proven to summarise a big article and should not be used in very small biography articles (but in fact noone cares about that because of an urgent feeling of leveling down every article to the same format). Infoboxes should be drafted a bit more individually, fitting the specific issue instead of mechanically pushing them everywhere and overcrowding anything. For example, reaching 5% in a presidential election or at least 5% in the national results of a party's primaries is completely different from reaching the obscure feat of 5% in a regional primary, especially in (but not limited to) a region like American Samoa. 5% in a presidential election is of huge political and media relevance, whereas 5% in a state primary is of absolutely no meaning at all. It is absurd to govern ALL those articles about American politics under the same obscure 5% rule (in Democratic primaries it is extraordinarily obscure as 5 % is meaningless and at 99.9999% chance equivalent to complete and disastrous failure). --SamWinchester000 (talk) 16:01, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sam, is there any specific reason, why you chose to merge the articles of the 2020 Guam Democratic & Republican presidential caucuses, but not of literally any other year? Please maintain the consistency, if you merge the articles, do it for all the years, or keep them separate as they recently were. Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 08:28, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2020 Arizona Democratic presidential primary, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Delaney.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 30 October 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) 01:09, 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) 00:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]