User talk:Ixocactus

Welcome!
Hello, Ixocactus, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful: Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! ,Marcos dias de oliveira (talk) 03:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC) P.S:Me de boas-vindas também! XD
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

 * Hi Ixocactus! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission.  I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
 * The Teahouse new editor help space
 * Wikipedia Help pages

-- 01:25, Wednesday, October 7, 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

 * Hi Ixocactus! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission.  I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
 * The Teahouse new editor help space
 * Wikipedia Help pages

-- 00:14, Saturday, February 27, 2016 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 17 – 29 October 2018
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:01, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 18 – 30 November 2018
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:20, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 19 – 27 December 2018
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:08, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 20 – 31 January 2019
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 21 – 28 February 2019
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Ethan Lindenberger for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ethan Lindenberger is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Ethan Lindenberger until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @  06:32, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 22 – 28 March 2019
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:45, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you are biased,
it seems against tables. The table format allows for inclusion of far more context than the previous one, but when you removed the table you said it was because it "...destroy[ed] the context." Please explain on the talk page of the relevant article the full rationale for your reversion. Thank-you. Sotuman (talk) 14:49, 19 April 2019 (UTC)


 * No. Table format is a very bad idea, as explained in the talk page. Ixocactus (talk) 17:57, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 23 – 30 April 2019
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 24 – 17 May 2019
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:52, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Revertion of my edits on Kombucha
The source in question states "The author concluded that the therapeutic use of Kombucha could not be recommended owing to the lack of clinical efficacy and associated serious adverse events", however a single source is not sufficient to come to the conclusion that "Therefore, the potential harms from drinking kombucha outweigh any unclear benefits, so it is not recommended for therapeutic purposes.". I removed the sentence because it is not WP:NPOV. If you must restore it, please re-word it to remove the bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UKWikiGuy (talk • contribs) 03h43min de 30 de maio de 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi The source is a publication by Edzard Ernst. It is sufficient to explain the unclear benefits and potential harms of kombucha. Ixocactus (talk) 18:18, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Regarding my Ganzfeld Edit
I cannot accept that my edit was deemed unconstructive. I supplied data to support my claim that, contrary to what the debunkers here on Wikipedia are claiming, the Ganzfeld replication rate is 6 times that of what it should be if the null hypothesis were to be correct. Hence, it isn't accurate to claim that replication has been inconsistent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AscentIntoOvermind (talk • contribs) 00:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia cannot accepts your opinion. Journal of Parapsychology is not a WP:RS. In fact, its WP:FRINGE. Ixocactus (talk) 02:29, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Judy Mikovits
Hi! I edit conflicted with you; I was going to switch it over to Category:Pseudoscience, as of course Category:Pseudocientistas does not exist on this project, being that it's Portuguese. Would you prefer that I instate my edit, or not have a category for it at all? Best, Vermont (talk) 04:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi ! Sorry. My error. I confused the entries of pt-wiki and en-wiki. I will be bold and put pseudoscience cat there. Cheers! Ixocactus (talk) 13:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Franco Volpi (philosopher)
Hi there, I just want to let you know that I declined the speedy deletion tags you applied to this article, because the article (in my view) does not fall into either criteria you tagged, namely A1 and A7. A1 strictly applies only to very short articles which lack sufficient context to identify the subject. Here the subject of the article, Franco Volpi, is clearly identified and understandable, and this already is enough to take the article outside of A1 territory. A7 only applies to articles with no credible claims of significance. There are some borderline statements making such claims in the article, and more importantly if you do a search of the subject in google, you can find the author has been mentioned in some sources (of questionable credibility), and that he has authored many books in his field of expertise. While these facts alone may not necessarily justify notability, they are enough (in my view) to take the article out of A7 as well. Please consider tagging this for AFD if necessary, if upon further search you found questions as to the subject's notability. Please let me know if there are any issues. Cheers --Dps04 (talk) 06:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi I do not like wikilawyering, but your reasons sounds me HEPOT.  I didn't encounter any philosopher talking about this guy or his works, and the only source on the entry is a tiny obituary, per GNG and ONEEVENT. But you are the admin editor here. The BURDEN is yours and I do not have  english skills to AFD this. Cheers! Ixocactus (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi there, not sure what you meant by HEPOT, but it is not difficult for you to AFD this. Your rationale could be something as simple as (in your own words): the only source on the entry is a tiny obituary, fails GNG and ONEEVENT. If you encountered technical problems attempting to send this to AFD, you may install Twinkle (in case you have not), which would complete the nomination for you in an automated process. Finally, sorry if you find me going into too much details in the earlier message, but I just wanted to bring out the message that, as a general rule, speedy deletion (including A7) is only used in very limited circumstances, failing which you would have to send the article to AFD for community discussion. And although I am not an admin here, please do let me know if you encountered other questions on the way. Cheers --Dps04 (talk) 05:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks . I see many icons in your userpage and wrongly understand you are an admin and wrongly thinked that only admins can revert one A7 request. Now I have readed WP:CSD and not finded objections for your removal of deletion tag. But your WP:CCS reasons sounds WP:HASPOT for me (My error when writed HEPOT), but it not meets WP:NRVE. I will try AFD with Twinkle. Cheers. Ixocactus (talk) 08:03, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , no worries! Perhaps you can think of WP:CCS this way: assuming all the statements (which are reasonably credible) in an article are correct and verifiable, would the article have a potential for notability? If the answer is yes, then A7 probably does not apply. So yes, CCS is a much lower stanadrd than notability, and does not require verifability (WP:NRVE is only relevant to assessing notability). Happy editing Dps04 (talk) 08:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

You nominated the AfD, which is technically your delete vote, now you voted keep on it, really all you need to do is withdraw your nomination and self-close if you want, or if you don't know how to do that, you could ask an admin to close it for you at WP:AN. Govvy (talk) 08:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Thanks for advice! I do not know the correct procedure, because this I voted keep. I will try AN. If I make some mistake, please correct me. Thank you very much! Ixocactus (talk) 09:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Qorbuch
I wasnt sure whether here or pt.wiki was a better place to post this since I dont speak Portuguese but ... someone offsite has alerted me to a likely hoax article on pt.wikipedia, at pt:Língua qorbuch. On the talk page of that article is a long summary in English of the reasons why the language likely does not exist. I considered just typing a delete message on the page with no explanation, but since the talk page message has been there for quite a while I figure this might not be such an easy case. I wanted to find someone fluent in both English and Portuguese, and I apologize that I didnt look at all of the admins on the pt.wiki list, I just picked a name I recognized. (I dont know where I saw you, perhaps Nibiru?) I hope you can help or if not find someone who can  take a  closer look at this. Thank you, — Soap — 22:25, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Never mind, it has now been deleted by . after a different user put it on PROD. — Soap — 18:04, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * In Portuguese the article didn't had a single reliable source. In those cases we can speedy the deletion, if there is reasonable suspicion of a hoax. thank you very much for the notification. Darwin  Ahoy!  19:19, 25 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Thanks for all. Ixocactus (talk) 19:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Join the RfC to define trust levels for WikiLoop DoubleCheck
Hi , you are receiving this message because you are an active user of WikiLoop DoubleCheck. We are currently holding a Request for Comments to define trust levels for users of this tool. If you can spare a few minutes, please consider leaving your feedback on the RfC page. Thank you in advance for sharing your thoughts. Your opinion matters greatly! María Cruz

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC) If you would like to modify your subscription to these messages you can do so here.

New, simpler RfC to define trust levels for WikiLoop DoubleCheck
HI , I'm writing to let you know we have simplified the RfC on trust levels for the tool WikiLoop DoubleCheck. Please join and share your thoughts about this feature! We made this change after hearing users' comments on the first RfC being too complicated. I hope that you can participate this time around, giving your feedback on this new feature for WikiLoop DoubleCheck users. Thanks and see you around online, María Cruz MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC) If you would like to update your settings to change the wiki where you receive these messages, please do so here.

Concerning Changes in Aroup Chaterjee
Hello,

Sorry for Changing the Article by telling the Book as Fiction etc... But now, i ll put the Word alleged for the Book on Mother theresa because we can't say that whole fact is true or False in that Book there is no direct Proof. So Please look into the Matter because i read that Book and Found it Bit Fictitious.

Thank you Prem rian 3457 (talk) 05:31, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Battle of Diu Diagram
Your recent editing history at Battle of Diu shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Wareno (talk) 18:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)


 * You are edit warring. Only after my requests you put a source on your suspect file. Ixocactus (talk) 19:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

WikiLoop 2020 Year in Review
Dear editors, developers and friends:

Thank you for supporting Project WikiLoop! The year 2020 was an unprecedented one. It was unusual for almost everyone. In spite of this, Project WikiLoop continued the hard work and made some progress that we are proud to share with you. We also wanted to extend a big thank you for your support, advice, contributions and love that make all this possible.

Head over to our project page on Meta Wikimedia to read a brief 2020 Year in Review for WikiLoop.

Thank you for taking the time to review Wikipedia using WikiLoop DoubleCheck. Your work is important and it matters to everyone. We look forward to continuing our collaboration through 2021!

María Cruz MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - Donald Albury 15:38, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you . I have replied the attacks. Cheers! Ixocactus (talk) 22:07, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Fifth Republic
(Concerning the term "Fifth Brazilian Republic"). Please discuss at the talk page of Military dictatorship in Brazil instead of edit warring. If you refuse to discuss why you believe the term shouldn't be added to the article, I will add it back. FredModulars (talk) 21:28, 5 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm not editing warring. In fact you are in 3RR. I'm not. I am only enforcing V. Could you please provide a RS to add the term? I have read a couple of sources about the dictatorship and realize that "Quinta República" is used as weasel word only by marginals and deniers, not by profissional historians. Ixocactus (talk) 21:52, 5 September 2021 (UTC)


 * No. 3RR is more than three reverts ("An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period."). I reverted my last revert (before you replied, I should add) to allow for discussion. I believe there are other sources that use the term "Quinta República", but even the Chamber of Deputies chops up Brazilian history into six republics, whether they were republics or not or whether the timeline fits. See here.


 * I am not a denier nor do I welcome the actions the dictatorship did, but for purposes of chronology and navigation, this period in Brazilian history should be classified, not literally, as the Fifth Republic. FredModulars (talk) 22:26, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Parapsychology Edits
Hey. This is fdk32020. My edits for the parapsychology page were taken down. I removed the sentence saying that parapsychology papers do not appear in mainstream scientific journals because they do. See:

1) https://www.dropbox.com/s/50v9d1zt2zujlxj/Cardena%20American%20Psychologist%20psi%202018.pdf?dl=0

Published in the American Psychologist (flagship journal for the APA).

2) https://www.dropbox.com/s/0jd7p6tjpvz9iam/2021%20RadinPhysicsEssays.pdf?dl=0

Published in Physics Essays.

3) https://www.dropbox.com/s/1dgkfk3ey9n53fj/Sherwood2003MetaDreamESP.pdf?dl=0

Published in Journal of Consciousness Studies.

4) https://www.dropbox.com/s/3n69c9cyv3fw0wr/Storm2010MetaFreeResp.pdf?dl=0

Published in the Psychological Bulletin.

5) https://www.dropbox.com/s/do8uaoferr3go30/Mossbridge%202014.pdf?dl=0

Published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience.

I wanted to post this in the summary for why I removed the sentences but I was given limited character length.

Is it possible if I may still remove it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fdk32020 (talk • contribs) 01:35, 28 February 2022 (UTC)


 * . In context, parapsychology papers are not published in mainstream journals because psi fails to be useful to advance other sciences. There isn't a metallurgy journal that publishes a paper about pig iron improving by psi powers. In fact, your cherry-picked sources only confirms the contents of Pigliucci & Boudry (2013). Cadeña, Radin et al. are considered not-reliables by WP WP:PAGs. But look about our WP:GOODBIAS. Ixocactus (talk) 02:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

"parapsychology papers are not published in mainstream journals". I only gave you some examples. I could keep listing more and more if you want.

"because psi fails to be useful to advance other sciences. There isn't a metallurgy journal that publishes a paper about pig iron improving by psi powers". Well yeah that's cause metallurgy has nothing to do with psi powers. But there's psychology journals that explain how to improve psi powers. So therefore it is useful to advance other sciences.

" Pigliucci & Boudry (2013). Cadeña, Radin et al. are considered not-reliables by WP WP:PAGs. But look about our WP:GOODBIAS". Wait how are Radin and Cardena not reliable? They're accredited scientists who have been studying parapsychology for decades. It's like posting research papers from a chemist in Wikipedia Chemistry page and saying that they are not reliable. How is Pigliucci reliable? He is an evolutionary biologist and card-carrying skeptic who never did a day of parapsychology research. Also this is a secondary source not a primary source. I'm an only citing primary sources from peer-reviewed literature. You can include their opinions but you have to show what the actual parapsychologists say in response to those opinions. Otherwise, you will end up misrepresenting the subject matter. Also Pigliucci is not a good biased source according to Wikipedia biased source standards because he does not have "a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering". These are not peer-reviewed comments so they are not fact-checked and he has not independence from the topic being covered as he is a card-carrying skeptic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fdk32020 (talk • contribs) 02:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Also with respect to your GOODBIAS link, the founder Jimmy Wales says this "Wikipedia's policies ... are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals – that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately."

Every single one of those papers (and many more) I linked here were published in "respectable scientific journals" and they can "produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments" (if you read the papers you will see this is apparent). So by this logic, Wikipedia should appropriately the topic of parapsychology and treat Radin and Cardena as credible sources (according to it's own policy). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fdk32020 (talk • contribs) 02:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I tried to respond your question. In plain words, because is not possible remove the content based on your claim "I wanted". Per your responses I wish good luck to you, but suggest you to keep a respectable distance from WP:FRINGE topics because your appears WP:NOTHERE to build this encyclopaedia. Ixocactus (talk) 05:09, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @Ixocactus sorry I was busy for the past month so I could not respond to this comment. The "I wanted" phrase I used pertained to an explanation for why I changed the "Parapsychology" page on Wikipedia and why I made the edits I made. I was limited by character length into giving a summary as to why hence I said "I wanted" to post that explanation there but could not. It had nothing to do with me "wanting" to believe something and as a result making according edits to the page. With respect to WP:NOTHERE, I was able to read through it and one of the tenets was "Little or no interest in working collaboratively". Given that you have taken down all of my edits, deemed all of my sources "unreliable" even though they appear in peer-reviewed publications, have no interest in showing both sides of the argument (respecting Wikipedia's tenet of neutrality_ and are disregarding Wikipedia's policies in regards to your own sources, it seems that you are not interested in working collaboratively. So hence you are WP:NOTHERE. Fdk32020 (talk) 19:20, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Psi encyclopedia
@Ixocactus: This is notification of the warning posted by myself on my talk page. --Brian Josephson (talk)


 * I am still waiting for your response. Meanwhile, at my suggestion the editor of the encyclopedia has changed the 'about' page so that the only critical comment on WP is much milder than before, viz: However, a vocal minority of sceptics –  often active in sceptic organisations – campaign against psi research in books, in the media, and on the internet and in Wikipedia, disparaging it as 'pseudoscience' and disputing its conclusions.  Are you OK with that now?  If not then I shall go ahead with reporting you for disruptive editing, as before. --Brian Josephson (talk) 19:26, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The correct location to report disruptive editors is WP:ANI. Look at our WP:PAGs and WP:BOOMERANG too. But feel free to advance your ideas. Ixocactus (talk) 17:50, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I had been planning to use that location, but have been too busy to do anything as yet. Brian Josephson (talk) 18:31, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Still been too busy ... Some things are even more important than the job of fixing WP to make it more neutral. Brian Josephson (talk) 08:46, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Feldenkrais Method URL
@Ixocactus: Thanks for pointing out how to reestablish dead links. Still dead is the first part of reference 2 : Baggoley C (2015). "Review of the Australian Government Rebate on Natural Therapies for Private Health Insurance" (PDF). Perhaps you can correct it to the redirect you added. Note that the article currently states from a 2015 reference: "There is no good medical evidence that the Feldenkrais method improves health outcomes. It is not known if it is safe or cost-effective, but researchers do not believe it poses serious risks." while the actual 2015 reference below only uses the term uncertain. Since 2015 there has been considerable further study in Australia and some are underway.


 * === Feldenkrais === from
 * "The Feldenkrais method was invented by Moshe Feldenkrais. It is a gentle form physical therapy that focuses on breath, posture, and movement. What the Feldenkrais technique promises is vague and seems to revolve around nonspecific “wellness” rather than any objective effects. While several systematic reviews were found, few contained any RCTs. Data quality, again, was poor. Overall, the effectiveness of Feldenkrais for the improvement of health outcomes in people with any clinical condition was felt to be uncertain."

Since 2015 there has been considerable additional literature about Complementary and Integrative Health which is not cited in the article. Australia calls these topics Natural Therapies whereas Wikipedia calls them Alternative Medicine You might find of interest:
 * The reliable source 2021 article by Denise Millstine, MD, Mayo Clinic. :The article is included in Merck Manual article “Overview of Integrative, Complementary, and Alternative Medicine” provides validation of its reliability. The Merck Manuals are available Online.
 * "Complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine are terms often used interchangeably, but their meanings are different.
 * Complementary medicine refers to    non-mainstream practices used together with conventional     medicine.
 * Alternative medicine refers to    non-mainstream practices used instead of conventional     medicine.
 * Integrative medicine is health care that uses all appropriate therapeutic approaches—conventional and non-mainstream—within a framework that focuses on health, the therapeutic relationship, and the whole person."
 * Examples at two preeminent Medical Schools:
 * Harvard University Medical School The Osher Center for Integrative Medicine
 * UCSF Medical School Integrative Women’s Health

Hopefully we can all make Wikipedia a neutral information resource which is up to date in its referencing. Bbachrac (talk) 00:25, 12 October 2022 (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) 01:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Plot cites
Hello, this is from MOS:PLOTSOURCE, "The plot summary for a work, on a page about that work, does not need to be sourced with in-line citations, as it is generally assumed that the work itself is the primary source for the plot summary."

This is especially true for works of fiction, where the content is not contentious, and the full details of the plot are rarely recorded in WP:RS. The only films I know to be reffed on WP, are documentaries with controversial content. Works of fiction never are. Pincrete (talk) 08:04, 10 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi . Thanks for the message. Now I understand the point. Cheers! Ixocactus (talk) 12:31, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Competitive Enterprise Institute
You reverted my edit on the Competitive Enterprise Institute page for being non-constructive. The edit war there about whether or not the think tank promotes climate change denialism has been on going for a very long time. I think my reversion was constructive - it's pretty obvious that whatever someone's view is of the think tank, "climate change denial" is certainly not an accurate way to describe their view, especially in the absence of any citation for the claim. The page as it is is blatantly misleading and needs to be changed to reflect a non-biased view. 50.169.32.211 (talk) 15:19, 30 August 2023 (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) 00:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)