User talk:Cclowe

(Intro moved to user page)

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 08:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Ngwane IV / Sobhuza I of Swaziland
Greetings Cclowe.

I have moved the article to Ngwane IV of Swaziland with redirects from Ngwane IV, Sobhuza I and Sobhuza I of Swaziland. I hope it is ok know. Please let me know if he is better known as Sobhuza I please let me know (I presume the "Nggwane" version is a mere misspelling?) Btw, the correct procedure is to go to the page in question and click the "move" button located above the article text. Then type the correct name and click "move page". After that, click the link suggested ("please check if this move has created any double redirects). Once there, click any links that have a "(redirect)" after them and update to the article's new name. The category pages update automatically whenever an article has been moved so no action is needed here. If you find this procedure confusing, feel free to contact me, and I will be glad to help. PS: You might wish to move your personal information to your actual user page. Most users use the user page to contain personal information and keep the talk with other users on the User Talk page. Welcome again and happy editing. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 08:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello Valentinian. Thanks for the help.  I think with what you've told me & a recently located FAQ I should be able to address any similar problems in the future, though I still need to understand redirects better.  Yes Nggwane is a mere misspelling.  Although Ngwane IV is not wrong, he is much better known as Sobhuza I, and was in his own time.  There are contemporary references to Sotho-speaking people calling those we now call Swazi (emaSwati in siSwati) the "Baraputse", which was derived from "Sobhuza" analogously to how "Swazi" derived from his son "Mswati".  Virtually all of the significant published literature on Swaziland calls him Sobhuza I mainly, though some will mention the Ngwane IV alternative.


 * This pattern of double names somewhat resembles a case in what is now Angola in which a personal name became in effect something like the name of an office, with a cycle of four or five office-names. If instead of voting for president, we voted for who would be Washington in 2000, and who would be Adams in 2004, and who would be Jefferson in 2008, and then who would be Washington again in 2012, it would be similar.  In Swaziland (or Kangwane as it was then, i.e. ka-Ngwane, "the place of Ngwane," ka- being a locative prefix), however, the name cycle was irregular.  Sobhuza I was important enough that his own name entered into the repetitions, so that the great 20th c. Swazi king was Sobhuza II (reigned 1899-1982, in his own right 1922-1982).


 * Thanks for the tip about the user page. I think I was looking at both for a few people & got confused.  Will fix it.
 * Cclowe


 * Hi again. As I read your post, it would be better to have his article at Sobhuza I of Swaziland ? I can either move it or list it at WP:RM if there are any technical problems. Regarding your signature, I don't know what is wrong. I've tried pressing the link below the "show changes" button, and it works for me. Unfortunately, I use a Danish keyboard which is somewhat different from a U.S. one, but if you use a Windows based system, I believe the key is located on the top left key next to "1", but I don't know if you have to hold down Shift, Alt or Alt Gr to activate it. If you use a Mac, you should be able to find the key by holding down the left "shift" button and pressing the key between it and the Z.


 * I always chose simply to type

~


 * If it still doesn't work, feel free to contact me again. Thanks for the explanation regarding the Swazis. I can easily move the page to Sohuba I of Swaziland if you prefer? Btw, the correct way to create a redirect is as follows: Suppose Frederick I of Denmark was also commonly known as Friedrich (that is his German name, but it is not relevant here, it is just to have an example). In that case you should go to the name you wish should be a redirect (in this case: Friedrich I of Denmark). Wikipedia will say that this article doesn't exist yet, press "edit this page" and then type the following:


 * 1) REDIRECTFrederick I of Denmark


 * add no other text and press "save". That will do the trick. Happy editing. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 10:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Yes, I think moving to Sobhuza I would be best.  I get the picture about redirects better now.  I think my tilde problem may be with the browser (Mac, Safari).  Appreciate all the help.  (P.S. I find that pasting the 4 tildes from your message works).


 * Ngwe 18:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If the redirect to Sobhuza I of Swaziland (and Sobhuza I had not been "occupied" already, I could have moved it immediately. I have listed this article on WP:RM (requested moves). You can vote for the move on Talk:Ngwane IV of Swaziland. If a majority support it, it will be moved around one week from now. Regards. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 19:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

SA History Wikiproject
Hello there. Thanks for your interest in the above. Essentially I see the wikiproject as being something of a central meeting place for those interested in South (and maybe Southern) Africa's history. There really wouldn't be any onerous burdens or commitments. Essentially it would be a place where we could ask for help from those with expertise in different areas, collaborate in improving articles, liaise on organising current coverage in a more systematic way, gain some kind of peer review from those with a background in the subject, etc, etc. We have some excellent articles (one or two dealing with the history of Cape Colony have reached Featured Article status, the page on Lord Milner is quite good), but many important areas are neglected (eg. history of Transvaal/Natal/OFS, biographies of important figures such as Louis Botha/JBM Hertzog/JX Merriman). If we get enough interest then I think that it could be the catalyst for substantial improvements.

My personal interests include military history, but largely centre around the political. My chief interest is the evolution of Afrikaner nationalism. Up until now I've used my limited time expanding the Jan Smuts article/subarticles (Jan Smuts's youth has just been through Peer Review and should be going up for Featured Article status soon). I've also kicked off one or two others, such as the (incomplete) article on the South Africa Act 1909 (the Union Constitution). I have a bit more time on my hands over the next month or two, so I might actually get some of these finished!

Anyway, there we are. Hopefully we'll be able to drum up some interest from a few others and get this started off. I think if four or so people expressed an interest then we could make this a go; so that means two/three more people. It's good to have you on board though; the African experience is rather neglected here as far as I can see (although so are most things SA - hence the project).

As far as your tilde problem goes, I'm not sure. Persumably you're using a PC in which case it's + #. If that isn't working, perhaps your keyboard is faulty? Can you get a tilde up in other programs? Clicking on the four tildes next to the 'Sign your name:' at the bottom of the edit box doesn't work? Which browser are you using?

Best wishes,  X damr  talk 23:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Zulu
Someone has now moved Dinizulu to Dinuzulu. On the rest of this, if you need technical help, feel free to hit me up on my user talk page, but content-wise it sounds like you are way beyond me on this topic. If you really cannot type tildes on your browser, please do note the "Symbols" section below the edit box when you edit, which should have a place to click to insert a tilde. - Jmabel | Talk 19:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

AFD
Your attempt to list a page at AFD hasn't been too successful - it appears to list a page for deletion that doesn't exist. What was the page you were try to list? Yomangani talk 01:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I think I understand the problem now. The page that the link you clicked goes to doesn't exist (Queen Thandile Ndwandwe), so you don't need to delete it or move it. If you want to create a page for this person under a different spelling you should edit the Mswati II of Swaziland page and replace the link to Queen Thandile Ndwandwe with a new link to the page you want to create. When you save the Mswati II of Swaziland page after editing your link will appear on that page, and clicking on that link will take you to a page where you can create the article for Tsandzile Ndwandwe. I'd advise you to have a good read through Editing Wikipedia before you begin, but if you have any problems drop me a note and I'll try to help (although I'm fairly busy this week, so it may be a while before I respond). Cheers, Yomangani talk 13:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks Yomangani, I did something that ended up at the same place though I can see now how your way saves a step from what I did. I have been reading the pages you suggest & some others & will continue to do so, but it is one of those things where there's a cumulative logic and some things aren't explicitly addressed because there's so much and some things most folks won't have trouble with -- I think "links" with nothing at the other end is one of those.  I was a bit dense in not seeing that if there was nothing there, changing the link on the Mswati page was changing the only thing that mattered.  Now that I understand that, I'm not likely to forget it.  Anyway, appreciate the help. Ngwe 01:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Bantu
Hi Chris. In case you weren't aware, I have responded to your well-made points on Talk:Bantu. Also, judging from your userpage and contributions, I thought you might be interested in the Africa-related regional notice board ; and probably in WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias, too. Kind regards, &mdash; mark &#9998; 08:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Ethnic groups
Excellent remarks at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups. I've done my best to respond (there) with some background on how things got to be as they are and some thoughts on what we might do about it. I don't know whether you have the page watchlisted, so I'm pinging you here; please do watchlist it, that seems the appropriate place to discuss this. - Jmabel | Talk 23:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Taiwanese aborigines
Hi Ngwe, I haven't crossed paths with your colleague Doug Fix. If he is chatty (as I am, sometimes to my detriment) and likes to talk about Taiwanese aborigines, then send him my way. Thanks --Ling.Nut 18:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Change in Signature
I've decided to use my usual name for my signature, in place of the former "Ngwe". Since I gather that multiple identities are sometimes used for questionable purposes in Wikipedia, I thought I should note the change. Chris Lowe 06:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Experts and amateurs
Hi, Chris. I noticed some comments you made at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups regarding some remarks I had written (either on the same page or at Talk:Bantu, I'm not sure). I'm sorry I missed the discussion earlier. Please know that I am not an expert on any African topic; I'm just a well-meaning amateur trying to fill some gaping holes in Wikipedia's coverage of African topics. If you see me say something that is false or you see an error in any of the articles I have written or edited, please don't hesitate to let me know or fix the error. It's great that someone with your background is willing to help out on Wikipedia, so please do keep an eye on us non-specialists. -- BrianSmithson 06:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Brian. Thanks for the note, and for all your efforts on behalf of strengthening Africa content in Wikipedia. From what I've seen of your contributions (including discussions) you appear to be well-meaning certainly, but also level-headed, considerate and reasonable.  What I was commenting on is an issue that does not narrowly rely Africa expertise, in fact probably needs informed analogies from elsewhere, which is the status of using "Bantu" as an ethnonym.  I have some fairly strong feelings about that issue because of my experiences as a teacher of African history.  The feelings do arise from my "expertise" in the sense that the treatment of "the Bantu" as "a people" elides or occludes distinctions that I think are important perhaps especially for those relatively new to trying to understand African people (and peoples) in all their amazing rich cultural variety.  But by the same token, the feelings of "experts" no less than other people may lead to balance or missing forest for trees problems.


 * However, my comment invoking some of your comments was, as you note, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups. There I was addressing on the problem for that WikiProject of achieving a consistent stance toward the several senses of "ethnic group" and its blurriness in relation to tangent ideas like people, nation, tribe, language group, religion etc.  "Bantu" is a term that illustrates the difficulties and one whose Wikipedia incarnation I had seen.  I thought and think that some things you said at talk:Bantu are a bit problematic but raised them really to illustrate the difficulties of consistency.  In the talk:Bantu context I think your intervention moved one bit of a debate forward helpfully, about "offensiveness" in a South African context. But I also think the problems of "the Bantu" as an ethnonym really can't be resolved by splitting off South Africa, which was peculiar, but mainly in the persistence past 1950 or 1960 (or a late shift to it by Afrikaner officials and policy) of a usage that was quite common across colonial constructions of Africa in the interwar period with even older roots.  I'll try to spell this out more at talk:Bantu at some point. And, apart from that intellectual history view, I think there is a conceptual problem with treating "the Bantu" as an ethnicity or a people.  Again I'll try to spell that out more at talk:Bantu.


 * Thus I do think there is a real problem with Bantu that has been discussed a bit but not really worked out satisfactorily, but I have not made a fix/revision to which others might respond. Partly this is a time issue. Also I have been reticent rather than bold due to newness to Wikipedia.  Your own energy and work puts my lack to shame.  When I do get to doing something I look forward to discussing it with you because I think dialogue between "experts" and reasonably well-informed and sensible "amateurs" is most apt to produce appropriately encyclopedic results.


 * Cheers, sala kahle, Chris Lowe 02:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply, Chris. Any confusion about the term "Bantu" on my part comes from the sources I've been using to write the various Cameroon-related articles I've done. For example, Historical Dictionary of the Republic of Cameroon begins its "Bantu" entry with, "The Bantu are one of the major cultural groupings of Africa." Victor Ngoh's history uses "Bantu-speakers" and "Bantu" interchangeably, and Neba's geography text uses the term "for the people as well as the languages found around the equatorial area in Cameroon."
 * As for reticence, do be bold and make the changes you think are necessary. As long as your changes are accompanied by citations to published, reliable sources, no one will likely challenge you. Like I said, Wikipedia can only benefit from more expert input. You've studied this stuff, so don't be afraid to share what you know and fix what needs fixing. I look forward to seeing more from you at Talk:Bantu and elsewhere. — BrianSmithson 12:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Swaziland under Transvaal power 1893-1902
Say me please, was Swaziland a protectorate of Transvaal from 1893 before the end of The Second Boer War in 1902 (according to www.worldstatesmen.org) or it was an integral part of Republic of Transvaal with effective control of Boer powers? --User:212.98.173.133 20:49 01.08.2007 (UTC)


 * Don't know if you will see this because I have been away so long, but ...


 * Short, summary answer: Swaziland was a partially effective protectorate of the S.A.R. from February 1895 until October 1899, with powers recognized under European international law but not by the Swazi government.  From the beginning of the Anglo-Boer War in October 1899 until the formal termination of Transvaal independence in 1902, the protectorate was purely formal and nominal, with no actual S.A.R. presence or real effectiveness.  Under British law and European international law the country was in legal limbo between the end of the S.A.R. and an order-in-council of 1903 that formally established Britain's claim to rule the territory.  It was never an integral part of the S.A.R. or the Transvaal Colony, and the Swazi royalty never conceded that they had lost or given up sovereignty.




 * Detailed answer: Transvaal's claim to governance did not become effective until February 1895, according to J.S.M. Matsebula's A History of Swaziland, 3rd ed. (Cape Town: Longman Penguin South Africa, 1988), which is a reliable source on matters of this nature.  This represented the implementation what the British called The Third Swaziland Convention, signed by the South African Republic and the U.K. in December 1894.  The convention purported to establish Swaziland as a protectorate of the S.A.R.  Under the convention the British agreed that the S.A.R. should have "full powers of protection, legislation, jurisdiction and administration" of the territory.  I.e. everything short of full incorporation.


 * By way of background, the first convention in 1890 set up a complex joint governance in which Swaziland retained sovereignty but both the South African Republic (the Transvaal) and the U.K. had commissioners in the territory with special powers concerning the interests of their subjects who lived in the territory. The Swazi government was party to the first convention.


 * In the second convention, between the U.K. and S.A.R. only, signed in April 1893, Britain conceded to the Transvaal the right to seek Swazi royal consent to the proclamation of a protectorate, but specifically not full incorporation. However, the Swazi rulers (there was a regency at the time) refused to consent to the proclamation.


 * The third convention thus removed the earlier British requirement of Swazi royal consent to the protectorate. But S.A.R. administration was never fully established.  Taxation only began in 1898, and even in its last year (1899) the administration was only able to collect taxes from about half of Swazi homesteads -- see Jonathan Crush, The Struggle for Swazi Labour, 1890-1920 (Kingston & Montreal: McGill-Queens U. Press, 1986).


 * The degree of effective governance was also shown by the fact that the S.A.R. was able to put the Swazi king, Bhunu (a.k.a. Ngwane V) on trial in 1898 for the assassination of an important royal governor, but had to give up its original plan to charge him with murder and depose him, instead imposing only a substantial fine for permitting public violence. While this symbolically established the fact of S.A.R. power over Bhunu, it also showed the limits of S.A.R. power, in the face of a still active Swazi army and British refusal to support more drastic S.A.R. plans.


 * The S.A.R. removed all its administrative personnel from Swaziland at the outbreak of the Anglo-Boer War in October 1899. Although it maintained a nominal Swaziland administration in Amsterdam in the eastern Transvaal, it had no power in the country.  The British began sending personnel into Swaziland in July 1902, and a small but substantial armed police force of 150 in September, but did not formally claim administration of the country until June 1903, through and order-in-council under the Foreign Jurisdiction Act.


 * At that point Swaziland became a British administered territory, but not formally a protectorate nor a crown colony. From 1903 to 1907 it was administered through the new British Transvaal Colony; in 1907 another order-in-council separated it from the Transvaal and placed it directly under the British high commissioner for South Africa, along with Basutoland (Lesotho) and Bechuanaland (Botswana).  The Swazi royalty acquiesced to British power, but never admitted to losing sovereignty.


 * Chris Lowe 06:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Prosecution of Republican propaganda and active Republican parties in current monarchies
Thank You very much for Your answer on my question about Transvaal’s protectorate under Swaziland! 1.	Now I interested in existence of Republican parties or movements in South African kingdoms Lesotho and Swaziland. What can You say about? 2.	Can You to confirm (or to disprove) that Republican agitation prohibited by the law in these countries? (And what penalty for each country?) 3.	Can You to confirm (or to disprove) that monarchical status of the province KwaZulu-Natal are legalize by South African Constitution? How about Republican movements and prohibition of Republican agitation in current kingdom of Zulu? Beforehand, Thank You! CrazyRepublican 13:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi. It would be useful is you set up a user page so I could put a note there that I have replied.
 * Hi. It would be useful is you set up a user page so I could put a note there that I have replied.


 * 1. In Swaziland it appears that the position of the People's United Democratic Organization (PUDEMO), generally accounted the largest and most radical opposition group, and highly critical of the king and royal rule under present circumstances, is for a constitutional monarchy like that in the U.K. or Scandinavian countries. It would surprise me if there were not a republican substrate within PUDEMO, but Swaziland is mainly a country of peasants and mixed peasant-workers in whose consciousness the royalty is important for the health and strength of the nation, so I believe the calculus is for a limited constitutional monarchy. Under the recently adopted new constitution, the king is a constitutional ruler who holds all ultimate powers in the state.


 * I am not familiar with the position in Lesotho.


 * 2. Under the new Swaziland constitution (adopted 2006, effective Jan 2007) a bill of rights guarantees freedom of speech and association, but the king may suspend them if he deems it in the public interest.  So republican groups are not prohibited outright, but if they formed, could only operate on the suffrance of the king.


 * Prior to the new constitution, political parties of all sorts were prohibited, including republican parties. The ban extended to organizations with wholly or primarily political purposes, which one would suppose to include advocacy of a change of form of government.  (Groups like human rights organizations did function legally).


 * There is some debate as to whether the ban on political parties and organizations still persists, since there in no explicit repeal of the King's Decree of 1973 which established the ban. Some say it is superceded by the new constitution but that is not clear.


 * Again I do not know the position in Lesotho. In general the Sotho king is much closer to a constitutional monarch in the European sense.  Historically in Lesotho criticism of hereditary monarchy and chiefship has not called for their abolition but for their restoration to a putative condition of popular accountability said to have been corrupted by colonialism (see Robert Edgar, Prophets With Honour (1983).


 * 3. Regarding the Zulu king, I am not entirely sure of the position at present.  It is very much tied up in relationships between the ruling African National Congress (ANC) and the Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) led by Chief Mangosutho Gatsha Buthelezi, with the king having his own autonomous interests.


 * There is no Zulu kingdom in South Africa, but there is a king of the Zulu people. The somewhat corresponding political unit is the province of KwaZulu-Natal (KZN), but the Zulu king is not the king of KZN.


 * The Republic of South Africa as a whole and its constituent provinces have a republican parliamentary form of government. The apartheid-era National Party government established a republic independent of the British monarchy in 1960, a status continued after the end of apartheid.  It is possible that the Zulu king functions as formal head of province in KZN (I don't think so, but am not sure), though executive power is certainly in the hands of the provincial legislative leader.


 * One of the last acts of form the SA state president F. W. de Klerk was to vest state lands in KZN directly in the control under trust of the Zulu king, somewhat analogously to Swaziland. I am not sure if this arrangement is enshrined in the South African constitution.


 * De Klerk's aim seems to have been to put the cat among the pigeons between the ANC and the IFP, especially since King Goodwill Zwelithini Zulu had for a long time been considered a pawn of Minister M. G. Buthelezi, but they had had a falling out.


 * Republican movements are legally permitted everywhere in South Africa. In addition to being governed by a republican party within a republic, the RSA has very strong civil liberties protections of speech, association and political activity in its post-apartheid constitution.


 * KZN has suffered extensive violence since the early 1980s, at certain points reaching the scale of civil war, although this is much reduced in recent years. In practice, in IFP controlled areas it would have been difficult for an anti-monarchical movement to operate, as Buthelezi bases one of his claims to power as holding on a hereditary basis the office of "traditional prime minister" to the Zulu king (historically dubious in the sense that independent Zulu kings in fact changed the families from which they drew their main Izinduna, or advisors/ministers).


 * The governing ANC does not seek to abolish hereditary chieftainship, including kingships in formerly independent polities connected with specific ethnic groups. The legal status, functions, and relations to local/ethnic communities of such "traditional leaders" is a matter of continuing debate.


 * I believe the South African constitution may recognize such leaders but am not clear exaclty how.


 * Sorry not to be of more definitive help.


 * Chris Lowe 23:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Good work on History of Namibia
Hi there Cclowe, I just wanted to stop by and say good work on the copy editing you did on History of Namibia just now. Edits like yours are the type that make wikipedia almost credible. I notice that you have an interest in Swaziland? Well, I started a few articles on Swaziland which you may want to take a look at: Swaziland Progressive Party and John Nquku. Thanks for your efforts and keep up the good work!--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 07:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for Mar 2
Hi. When you recently edited Tina Kotek, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dave Hunt (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) 10:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Contests
User:Dr. Blofeld has created WikiProject Africa/Contests. The idea is to run a series of contests/editathons focusing on each region of Africa. He has spoken to Wikimedia about it and $1000-1500 is possible for prize money. As someone who has previously expressed interest in African topics, would you be interested in contributing to one or assisting draw up core article/missing article lists? He says he's thinking of North Africa for an inaugural one in October. If interested please sign up in the participants section of the Contest page, thanks.♦ -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 01:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Margot Black has been accepted
 Margot Black, 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 Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. 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  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Margot_Black 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.

Thanks again, and happy editing! MurielMary (talk) 12:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

December 2023
Hello, I'm Sumanuil. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions&#32;to Oregon's 35th House district have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks.  -  Sumanuil  '''. ''' (talk to me) 03:28, 23 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello Sumanuil, thanks I guess. I'm not exactly surprised by your choice, as I wasn't really satisfied with my stab at solution to a problem relating to the HD 35 map.
 * I will take your advice about where to ask for advice, since your talk page suggests you're not particularly interested in giving it directly.
 * Still, speaking of what's constructive and what's not, your reversion leaves the page showing a completely inaccurate and misleading map for the district.
 * I didn't and still don't have the time to figure out how to get the comparable U.S. Census Bureau map into Wikimedia Commons, and the page isn't listed as part of any Wikiproject. At the Tea House and Help Desk I will ask how to deal with such problems, whether perhaps there is a group of expert editors concerned with maps to whom I could refer this one, whether there's a simple way to flag that the map is outdated and inaccurate. Chris Lowe (talk) 02:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)