User talk:Amtoastintolerant

Welcome!

Hello, Amtoastintolerant, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited was Bentley University, which appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

In addition, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for any contribution you make, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation to comply with our terms our use and policy on paid editing.

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The plain and simple conflict of interest guide
The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! GirthSummit _(blether) 19:49, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Explaining my revert

Hi, I reverted your changes at Bentley University. I'm not saying that this material is entirely unsuitable, but I was concerned that it was all sourced to Bentley's own website, or to blogs or twitter accounts. There was also an issue with language that might be considered promotional - e.g. the 'highly celebrated' description of the Fed Challenge team. Can I suggest that you read through our policies on verifiability and reliable sourcing, and see if you can find some better sourcing for the stuff about awards and honorable mentions? Also, if you are a student or employee of Bentley, you should read our policy on editing with a conflict of interest and take the appropriate action. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 19:54, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:Yanjiang District Subdivision Map.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Yanjiang District Subdivision Map.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 01:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Semyon Hitler

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Semyon Hitler requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Semyon Hitler. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. ~Amkgp ✉ 05:44, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Taicheng Subdistrict, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Taishan (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) 06:13, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Chen Qiushi (Lawyer)

Hello, Amtoastintolerant. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Chen Qiushi".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! —Nnadigoodluck███ 00:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

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) 03:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ergun City, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ergun Banner.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Vernacular residential architecture of Western Sichuan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sina.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SahleMiriam

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

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) 00:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sumner's page!

Hello, thanks for reaching out. I made some changes to the article, added citations. My general comments are below

In regards to Laos and Thailand, he cites Bloomberg and WSJ, but there is no evidence. Its baseless specualation predicated upon similarities. Neither WSJ nor Bloomberg suggested the virus came from those countries. They were discussing how it may have "evolved" into something that later orginated in China. My question to you is whether the blog is a primary source of information? Is someone else writing on his blog?

If he is writing and posting, which I presume he is, then the source must be considered as primary. And the criticism comes from the source -- that is, in the comment section. We could remove widely criticized, if you don't feel that the comment section is indicative of a "wider audience", but the problem with doing this is that what constitutes a wide audience is also subjective. The people who read his work, tend to be the one's who comment. And the comments, on these posts, are mostly critical.'

In a post titled "Do well behaved countries do better against Covid-19", Sumner laments that America's individualism and lack of obedience towards government are the reasons for its higher rate of infection.[citation needed]

I may have cited the wrong article. The correct article here is "The West's Embarrassing response to Covid". He claims that the west was "unwilling to take" the same steps as China. To praise their response is to praise their methods. One cannot logically separate the two. Their methods include locking people in their homes, setting up check points, and prohibiting travel. Supermarkets are considered "privileges".

In another post titled "Is China The Real Threat", Sumner downplays the regime's disparities with American democracy,[dubious – discuss] speculating that Russia's political support of Belarus is the greater threat to American liberty.

Sumner has written a number of posts that attempt to convince readers that China is not a threat to American democracy. I did cite one, which is titled "Is China The Real Threat", and I added another source "Trump loves Putin". I don't think Sumner would deny this. Indeed, in the post titled "Trump Loves Putin", he makes the claim that China has never violated international law, and speculates that in the next fifty years Russia is more likely to attack the U.S.. His statement about China never violating international law is incorrect. There are a few more posts as well, I'd have to real dig deeper to find them. But he's consistent about downplaying China's threat to American liberty

Sumner writes that fears over China's totalitarianism are simply "anti-china hysteria" or "More Trump Lies", and asks readers to disbelieve U.S. intelligence reports in posts titled "Should we believe U.S. intelligence services about China", and "Don't believe what you read about China". Sumner has also been criticized for gloating when China scores economic and political victories over the United States,[citation needed] which can be read in posts titled: "Once Again China to the Rescue", "Good News it looks like a big win for China", "How are those china crash predictions working for you", and "Random Thoughts", in which he tells his readers that TikTok is a "Christmas Gift" to the world, despite many countries banning its services over privacy violations.

The criticism comes from the comment section.

Sumner has also written extensively about former U.S. President Donald J. Trump. In a blog post titled "Trump Kills Americans to look good, no kidding!", Sumner attempts to convince his readers that the former President is "serious about killing Americans". I think this last one is self explanatory. It's a bit radical to suggest that a conservative president, with over 70M votes, is going to "kill americans". The comment section seems to feel the same way.

I'm open to any edits you want to make, but I do believe the criticism is warranted. Sadly, we live in a society that is increasingly divided (with radicals on both sides), and I think wikipedia needs to reflect the moderate viewpoint. Many academics and citizens do not believe that calling political opponents killers - without any evidence whatsoever" -- or suggesting Thailand and Laos are the origin of the virus to deflect crriticism from the CCP, or consistently criticizing american intelligence because you don't like what they have to say, should go unchallenged. For example, Laurence Tribe recently suggested that Tucker Carlson should be "arrested for treason". I'm afraid that these types of radical statements need to be confronted by moderates. Sumner is a public figure, economist, and people ought to know that, at times, he's been criticized for his radical views.''''

Thanks. MR (talk) 09:12, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:Micahrob, I appreciate your passion on this topic, and your commitment to contributing to Wikipedia. However, if you want to have a section on Sumner's page titled "Criticism", I think it's only fair you include some criticism. We don't want weasel phrases on the page, and we want to be as concise as possible. When you write that Sumner has been criticized, please provide evidence to support that, like an article condemning his views, and tell us who is doing this. Furthermore, I think the section needs to be done in a more factual style. Currently, the tone is very passionate and opinionated, which is not what we want, as it is unencyclopedic. Phrases like "attempts to convince his readers" contain a lot of connotations, and can simply be replaced with "writes"; the "laments" in "Sumner laments that the press was 'too easy on Trump'" can be replaced with a more accurate word, etc. Also, please keep spelling and grammar in mind: spell check your edits, capitalize proper nouns, etc. Unless you can provide an example of someone criticizing Sumner's views, I think this information would be better reformatted in a section titled "Views", as I have yet to see anyone actually of note criticize or address these views. I'm glad you're taking the time to add to this article, but please be more careful with these edits.

Best, 15:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)Amtoastintolerant (talk)

I somewhat disagree. I've permitted much of what you've said to stand, but I've changed a few words. I'm more interested in the facts than his reputation. Neither WSJ nor Bloomberg even remotely implied that the virus originated in Thailand or Laos. He misread both articles. You claim "nobody of note" criticizes, Scott Sumner. This is not only an incredibly arrogant statement, but it's factually untrue. A number of economists have criticized his views, including some of the most notable (i.e., Paul Krugman) -- not to mention, their are more than 20,000 scientists who disagree with his Covid opinions (Great Barrington Declaration, along with notable virologist Robert W. Malone, and notable cardiologist Peter McCullough, among countless others). Calling these scientists "anti-science", or "conspiracy theorists" is also quite radical. I may add to this vaccine section in the future to more accurately depict the comments he's made (i.e., calling academics "anti-sciencists", and calling people "anti-vaxx" and "killers", for not wanting to get the vaccine).

I don't believe the word "lament" is unencyclopedic, and I think it summarizes his position quite well. I did not readd the word, but I don't agree with your assessment. I think you are worried about his reputation, which is understandable, but it's clearly not unencyclopedic. And it's not unencyclopedic to quote him directly.

Thanks MR (talk) 21:41, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MR,

Thank you for taking the time to review and consider my edits to the page, and I'm glad to see we're reaching an agreement on the article, as I think it's in a much better state now than before either of us began editing it. Just to clarify, when I say that you've failed to demonstrate Sumner's ideas have earned him criticism, I mean that you haven't shown me an example of a notable person directly addressing Sumner. I agree that he's made a lot of statements which are controversial, and that many experts disagree with, but so long as I can't find an example of someone of note directly criticizing Sumner for saying this, I think it would be more encyclopedic to simply juxtapose the claim with statements/consensuses from experts, rather than creating a section titled "Criticism" if no one notable is directly criticizing him.

I look forward to your future contributions, although I "lament" you calling my statements "incredibly arrogant" and "factually untrue", when I think you're misinterpreting what I'm saying: disagreement with Sumner's statements do not mean that someone is criticizing him, since they're not addressing him at all. I would also caution against some of the material you're trying to put into this page: this is not the place to debate whether the media was fair or unfair to Trump, regardless on whether you have one study which dips its toes into this topic; nor does using the term "anti-vax" (with one "x", please check your spelling before making edits, as you've routinely made relatively simple errors) constitute a controversy, although I have left in the comments on "Trump Derangement Syndrome" since Wikipedia has concluded that it is a pejorative term, whereas "anti-vax" is not. Regardless, I hope we're able to continue adding more relevant content within the scope of Scott Sumner to this page!

Best, --Amtoastintolerant (talk) 04:12, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe you are accurately representing what was said in the comment section. Please read the comments over the last two years before editing. I believe my assesment is much more accurate - that is, the comments targeted his support for NATO, his statements about the vaccine, and/or ad hominem attacks: for example, some commenters called him "boomertard" and a "warmongerer". But not all of the comments were deranged, and very few of them mentioned Trump or Putin directly.

The term "right-wing" is also subjective.

And you also deleted the Havard study, which seems to be an effort to hide information relevant to his "trump media coverage" comments. On the other hand, the word "signficant" might not be necessary or justifiable considering there are opposing views over what constitutes a "privacy risk". MR (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again MR,

Please see the most recent comment on your talk page. I have given thorough explanations for my edits, and explained why your contributions need to include more thorough citations, more clear explanations, and need to stick to the scope of this article. If you want to object to the usage and relevance of the term "right-wing", I will be happy to work out a different term with you that summarizes the figures in question. The Harvard (not "Havard", please be more thorough with your spelling) study is simply not relevant to this page, as it is not authoritative, given the significant amounts of discourse on the matter, nor is Sumner's page the place to discuss whether media coverage towards Trump was fair or not, but rather, to discuss what Sumner says.

Best, Amtoastintolerant (talk) 20:38, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let's go through this line by line, because it's clearly very difficult for you to engage substance.

In a number of posts, going back for more than two years, several commenters have pointed to Lancet articles that show low rates of efficacy, and side effects. To give just one of numerous examples (you clearly didn't read the comments), a commenter named Yohan, cited https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanchi/article/PIIS2352-4642(22)00028-1/fulltext. That commenter is now banned. A commenter named Rinat, often cited the 'great barrington declaration', along with lancet articles, as his rebuttal to comments made around masks, vaccine passports, safety, efficacy, and the like. Despite providing sources, that commenter was widely ridiculed and banned. See https://gbdeclaration.org/ to learn about the more than 20,000 scientists who have now signed this document.

But again, let's go through line by line. Here is the paragraph:

Sumner has deleted past messages, and has banned people he calls "Russian Trolls" from posting on his blog. Some of the deleted messages were links to articles published in the medical journal Lancet. These articles were contrary to the views of the prevailing orthodoxy. Other messages included ad hominem attacks, typically directed at Sumner's support for NATO. Some of these commenters would cite past aggressions, such as NATO's bombing of Somalia, Libya, Syria, Bosnia, and Latin America, whereas others would cite RT documentaries such as "Donbass: The Grey Zone". These commenters argued that western media portrays the Ukranian civil war inaccurately. [40][41]

Has Sumner deleted past messages? Yes. Factually true. A woman named Sarah, in a comment said "I noticed my message on the other post was deleted; I suppose it's not allowed to mention the 100,000 deaths" (apparently referring to Donbas)

Has Sumner banned commenters. Of course! Article has been cited.

Has he called people "Russian Trolls". Of course.

The prevailing orthodoxy means "mainstream thought". Please look up that term and read the definition. When twitter, FB, Sumner and others "cancel people", the impetus for doing so typically revolves around this idea that their views are contrary to the views of the CDC and the medical establishment. That is why Robert Malone uses Telegram, where free speech is permitted. It's why doctors who disagree are afraid to say anything at all. Surely, you can understand the term "prevailing orthodoxy".

Are there ad hominem attacks directed at Sumner's support for NATO. Yes, of course. One doesn't have to look back that far to find them.

Were commenters citing what they perceived as "past aggressions", along with RT's donbas documentary. Yes. Factually true. One only has to look at the comment section in a number of posts, one of which was already cited, to find this comment.

"Right wing" is a pejorative term. It's also used subjectively. It's not clear to those of us who are highly educated, as to precisely what that means. What does it mean to be "right-wing". RFK jr, a democrat, is called "right wing" because he is opposed to many vaccines. Jordan Peterson, a moderate liberal is called "right wing", because he doesn't support curtailing free speech. Joe Rogan, another moderate liberal, is called "right wing" because he dares to listen to the views of others, such as Robert Malone and Peter McCullough. It's not a good choice of words. Many Trump supporters call him "moderate". Ted Cruz, a Harvard Attorney, and senator, who is often called "right wing" and occassionally called "Hitler", is has pretty moderate views, unless you consider the framers "right-wing".

Please attack the substance, and refrain from mentioning "spelling" or "grammar" as your argument, which you've done three times now.

After all, the structure of this sentence....

Sumner, frustrated by people he calls "morons", has attempted to prevent people from associating his views with support of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), has contrasted China, which he calls "a very good country of 1.4 billion people", with the CCP, which he describes as "a very evil government".[19]

...is so awful, that one doesn't even want to spend the time fixing it. Hint: you are missing a grammatical conjuction.

Or this sentence: Sumner has lamented what he sees as "anti-China" sentiment in the United States and Europe.[15][16] According to you, the word "lament" is "unencyclopedic". Or is that only when I use it?

Let's get a grip with reality, and leave the politics out of wikipedia.

I've been published four times in the last month, so I'm not going to argue with you over style and grammar. Let's talk about the substance. MR (talk) 22:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again MR,

Since you want to talk about substance, I'm going to ignore the ramblings of your response, since I'm not here to talk about Joe Rogan or Ted Cruz. I'm going to highlight the numerous typos you made in this response though ("occassionally" and "conjuction"), since spelling and grammar is in fact quite important here on Wikipedia.

First, let's address your edits regarding the Lancet comments. If you want to include that in this article, you should specify the topic of said papers in Lancet. Saying "Some of the deleted messages were links to articles published in the medical journal Lancet." doesn't give the reader an idea of what the actual comments made were, what article(s) in the Lancet they linked to, or why Sumner deleted them. Simply adding "These articles were contrary to the views of the prevailing orthodoxy." doesn't fix anything. Still, you've failed to provide a citation to support any of this. If you're so confident that these exchanges happened, simply provide a citation for it and move on, since we don't publish information here without sources backing them up.

Second, you've ignored the entire point I've made about why including the information about the commenter's documentary is not needed: it is superfluous. This is an article about Scott Sumner, and frankly, what documentary the commenters linked to is completely irrelevant.

Third, regarding my use of the term "right-wing", this is the general consensus reached by Wikipedians found on the respective articles of Donald Trump and Tucker Carlson. This attribute is backed up by numerous sources, and is not up for debate on an article about Scott Sumner. If you take issue with this label, leave a message on the respective Talk pages of the two figures in question.

For someone so concerned by "substance", you spent half of this rambling message talking about politics completely unrelated to Sumner, and the other half trying to point out a grammatically incorrect sentence that has a completely fine syntax. I'm reverting your edits once more, since you refused to engage with the issues I put forth. Given Wikipedia's policy on edit warring, I highly advise you cease these low-effort reversions. Please post your concerns to the Scott Sumner Talk page, where you can receive more input on your potential changes, rather than simply belligerently reverting good-faith edits, or I will move this over to Dispute Resolution.

I wish you the best, Amtoastintolerant (talk) 22:37, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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) 01:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Request for Dahua Technology

Hi Amtoastintolerant. I have some suggestions for improvements to the Dahua Technology article. I noticed that you show interest in Chinese-related pages and that you have worked on Binjiang District, which is where Dahua Technology is headquartered. Therefore, I thought you may be interested in reviewing my edit request on Dahua's talk page. I would appreciate if you can implement the two remaining points which have not yet been addressed. If you have any thoughts about the suggestions, I would be happy to discuss them. Thank you, Caitlyn23 (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Content for Dahua Technology

Hi Amtoastintolerant, thank you again for your help with implementing some edits on the Dahua Technology article. I have put up a new edit request on the talk page which includes some suggested additions for the article. I was hoping you'd be interested in reviewing it and making the relevant edits, if you agree they should be added. Of course, I am happy to discuss any of the suggestions. Thank you, Caitlyn23 (talk) 21:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on Dahua Technology Talk Page

Hi Amtoastintolerant, I am reaching out about this old discussion at Talk:Dahua_Technology. As you have previously assisted with edits for Dahua Technology, I was hoping you may be able to weigh in. Thanks so much, Caitlyn23 (talk) 16:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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) 00:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Amtoastintolerant. Thank you for your work on Stamford Street Railroad. SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Hello my friend! Good day to you. Thanks for creating the article, I have marked it as reviewed. Have a blessed day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 01:32, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]