User talk:Safety Cap/Archive/ 5

April 2015 Wikification drive.
Greetings! Just spreading a message to the members of WikiProject Wikify that the April drive has been started. Come on, sign up! :) One hand on the mouse, one hand on the keyboard... and the feet can do the rest! Hee-hee! (talk) 03:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

June 2015 Wikification drive.
Greetings! Just spreading a message to the members of WikiProject Wikify that the June drive has been started. Come on, sign up! :) &#34;A wiki of beauty is a joy forever.&#34; Seriously. That&#39;s how long it&#39;d take to read! (talk) 04:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Bots
You are receiving this message because a technical change may affect a bot, gadget, or user script you have been using. The breaking change involves API calls. This change has been planned for two years. The WMF will start making this change on 30 June 2015. A partial list of affected bots can be seen here: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2015-June/081931.html  This includes all bots that are using pywikibot compat. Some of these bots have already been fixed. However, if you write user scripts or operate a bot that uses the API, then you should check your code, to make sure that it will not break.

What, exactly, is breaking? The "default continuation mode" for action=query requests to api.php will be changing to be easier for new coders to use correctly. To find out whether your script or bot may be affected, then search the source code (including any frameworks or libraries) for the string "query-continue". If that is not present, then the script or bot is not affected. In a few cases, the code will be present but not used. In that case, the script or bot will continue working.

This change will be part of 1.26wmf12. It will be deployed to test wikis (including mediawiki.org) on 30 June, to non-Wikipedias (such as Wiktionary) on 1 July, and to all Wikipedias on 2 July 2015.

If your bot or script is receiving the warning about this upcoming change (as seen at https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages ), it's time to fix your code!


 * The simple solution is to simply include the "rawcontinue" parameter with your request to continue receiving the raw continuation data (example ). No other code changes should be necessary.
 * Or you could update your code to use the simplified continuation documented at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/API:Query#Continuing_queries (example ), which is much easier for clients to implement correctly.

Either of the above solutions may be tested immediately, you'll know it works because you stop seeing the warning.

Do you need help with your own bot or script? Ask questions in e-mail on the mediawiki-api or wikitech-l mailing lists. Volunteers at m:Tech or w:en:WP:Village pump (technical) or w:en:Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard may also be able to help you.

Are you using someone else's gadgets or user scripts? Most scripts are not affected. To find out if a script you use needs to be updated, then post a note at the discussion page for the gadget or the talk page of the user who originally made the script. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

F1 Challenge '99-'02 - F1 Challenge '99-'02. Edit war, spam and vandalism.
Hello, good afternoon there. I'm here for request a protection for the "EA Sports F1 Series" article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EA_Sports_F1_series).

On the last days, there were an edit war. This is because there is a user that doesn't stop spamming on the page, by dint of using Wikipedia as a sponsorship page for his Facebook page, for get people to download his multiple mod F1 Challenge 1988-2014. The afromentioned mod is composed by an amount of leeched stuff from their original authors (there are no 2012, 2013 and 2014 mods made from scratch, 1988 mod uses Dudi stuff, 1989 uses David Marques, Cheery, BMCM3 and MonteSky stuff, 1995 and 1996 uses CrashKing stuff, etc.) Since September, I'm restauring the article deleting spam daily. He even distorted on one ocassion a link referenced of the article I'm talking about.

(One more thing, you reverted one time his changes. Thank you for that.

Please, protect the page if you can. Banning the user solves nothing, because he utilises a dynamic IP.

Kins regards, --84.125.220.68 (talk) 15:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Your edit to my user talk page
What earthly use is it to anyone to know that I am one of the millions of customers of Virgin Media? If you read further down my user talk page you will see that this silly officious unsightly template has already been removed by another editor, so your re-addition of it constitutes edit-warring. Please find a better use for your time, such as doing something that actually helps build this encyclopedia, rather than throw silly templates around. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:37, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The point is to identify possible vandalism from various anonymous users. I'm not sure I understand why it bothers you and why you don't "make it go away" by simply creating an account. I see that the previous discussion talked about not removing the notice, but then it was removed. You will keep seeing the notice added as this is a standard thing. Why not take 3 minutes and create yourself an account? &mdash; Safety Cap (talk) 21:46, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You obviously haven't read and understood the discussion on my talk page, so please do so before deciding whether to argue this point further. And no, this is not "a standard thing", but something only done by officious editors who are not here to build an encyclopedia. Such a template might be useful if an IP address belongs to a school or employer and is so shared by many editors, but to have an unsightly template on my talk page to show that I am one of the four million or so customers of a major ISP is absolutely pointless. The ability to edit without registering an account is one of the very few non-negotiable policies here, being mandated by the Wikipedia Foundation rather than subject to community decision. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:57, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely correct that you can edit the encyclopedia as you see fit without having an account--I have never stated or suggested that you cannot. You are incorrect in assuming the talk page belongs to or refers to you. It does not. It belongs to the random customer of Virgin who happens to have a DHCP lease for that specific IP address at the time they are editing Wikipedia. When that IP address is tagged for vandalism, that info will go on the talk page. Was it you who vandalized? It doesn't matter: if the IP address is the source of enough vandalism, it will be blocked. Don't like it? Create an account. Don't want to create an account? That's a shame. &mdash; Safety Cap (talk) 22:14, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope - my bad. It looks like Virgin has permanently assigned you the IP address. &mdash; Safety Cap (talk) 22:17, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Double-nope - I was looking at the wrong record. &mdash; Safety Cap (talk) 22:18, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Why not just ask me what the situation is with my IP address rather than try to work it out from inadequate "whois" records? It is that Virgin are not contractually obliged to maintain the same IP address for my internet connection but in practice they do. The only times that my address has ever changed are when my service has been upgraded. All of the edits made from this address apart from the one in 2007 are mine. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Why does it bother you so much? I've updated several hundred anon talk pages in the same exact manner and you're the first one that has had a conniption, so I'm curious. &mdash; Safety Cap (talk) 18:06, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Because, as I have already explained here, the template is unsightly and absolutely pointless. To repeat the question that I started this discussion with, and you haven't answered yet, what earthly use is it to anyone to know that I am one of the millions of customers of Virgin Media? Just because a template exists doesn't mean that it should be spammed to every talk page of an unregistered editor. Most editors subjected to such spamming won't bother to dispute it but will simply decide never to edit Wikipedia again. Your actions, although I'm sure you don't mean to do so, contribute to the unwelcoming atmosphere at Wikipedia that drives new editors away. Find something better to do that actually helps build this encyclopedia, which is what we are supposed to be doing here. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:40, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * So, in your view, the notice serves no purpose and is ugly. To answer your question, "what earthly use is it to anyone to know that I am one of the millions of customers of Virgin Media?" - that is not the correct question. The correct question is "what early use is it to anyone to know that 86.17.222.157 is assigned to Virgin Media?". Since you are unable or unwilling to actually READ the text of the notice, is to help with abuse mitigation. You have no understanding of what it takes to maintain this place; your misguided idea of "what we are supposed to be doing here" is pedantic at best. If the site was run your way it would shortly become a mishmash of youtube comments and unsubstantiated pet theories. Other than content creation there are a very large number of people involved in preventing abuse. If you can be bothered to learn a tiny bit, go view Recent anonymous edits for an hour and see how much crap is posted and how many articles are vandalized on an hourly basis. &mdash; Safety Cap (talk) 12:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I have plenty of understanding of what it takes to maintain this place, and have no idea why you think that what you decribe would be "my way". A quick look at my contributions would show you that your assumptions about me are wrong. The point is that having that notice on the talk page associated with my IP address does nothing to help prevent the abuses that you describe. I see that you are interest in learning a tiny bit, so I would invite you to read Template:Shared IP. I've really had enough of this conversation, so you're welcome to have the last word but I won't be replying further. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 13:39, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Protect user pages by default
A request for comment is available on protecting user pages by default from edits by anonymous and new users. I am notifying you because you commented on this proposal when it was either in idea or draft form. Funcrunch (talk) 17:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey
Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:


 * 1) Adjust number of entries and days at Last unpatrolled
 * 2) Editor-focused central editing dashboard
 * 3) "Hide trusted users" checkbox option on watchlists and related/recent changes (RC) pages
 * 4) Real-Time Recent Changes App for Android
 * 5) Shortcut for patrollers to last changes list

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded User wikipedia/RC Patrol (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, — Delivered: 01:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

"Unreferenced section" tag on film plot chapter
Hi,

I have reverted your change on Platoon (film) where you added an "unreferenced section" template to the "Plot" chapter. I did this because I think the MOS page at WP:FILMPLOT says that we don't need external references for film plots because the film itself is a valid primary source. Spike (talk) 21:25, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Your edit on Falsifiability
Can you explain your rational to add your note about Bartley III in the article about Falsifiability. I like the viewpoint of Bartley III, as it is explained, it looks great, but it is not specifically about Falsifiability. It will fit better in an the article about Bartley. If there is a link with Falsifiability, I would see a similar link with any other article on philosophy of science.

I am considering that we should remove these "criticisms" of "contemporary philosophers", not because they are criticism - they are not criticisms - they are just simply unrelated. One is about Popper, but it is vague, nothing specific about falsifiability. However, what will be interesting is to see what these philosophers have written on Falsifiability. I would not remove them until I have looked at what they have written on Falsifiability, because I want to improve the article without ignoring what these philosophers have written. Dominic Mayers (talk) 17:55, 20 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note. I made two general changes: First, I removed redundancy by deleting the quote introduction text, which was already included in the quote, and moving the reference to the quote itself:


 * Before


 * Bartley in 1978 claimed, "Sir Karl Popper is not really a participant in the contemporary professional philosophical dialogue; quite the contrary, he has ruined that dialogue. If he is on the right track, then the majority of professional philosophers the world over have wasted or are wasting their intellectual careers. The gulf between Popper's way of doing philosophy and that of the bulk of contemporary professional philosophers is as great as that between astronomy and astrology.""

- W. W. Bartley in Philosophia 6 1976


 * After
 * "Sir Karl Popper is not really a participant in the contemporary professional philosophical dialogue; quite the contrary, he has ruined that dialogue. If he is on the right track, then the majority of professional philosophers the world over have wasted or are wasting their intellectual careers. The gulf between Popper's way of doing philosophy and that of the bulk of contemporary professional philosophers is as great as that between astronomy and astrology.""

- W. W. Bartley III


 * Secondly, the source for Rafe Champion's quote had been removed from the referenced site and (as explained at that site), published as a Kindle book. I redirected the citation to the kindle book.


 * Hope that helps. &mdash; Safety Cap (talk) 02:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, the format is better now than it was before. I noticed that. Thanks for that. My question was about your rational to add Rafe Champion's quote explicitly as a footnote. This footnote is a long text of 1.5k. It's the longest footnote and it's not about falsifiability, not even about Popper (who introduced it). I asked what is your rational. Your reply suggests that you simply followed a general procedure and had no specific rational related to falsifiability, which is the subject of the article. If this is the case, then thanks, generic procedures do not always work, but I appreciate very much that your intentions were to improve the paper - the format is better. We will keep the quote and the footnote for the time being, because there might be some rational for them, which is not well explained. I mean the footnote does  not even explain how Bartley III is related to the subject of the article. It seems totally out of the scope of the article.  Dominic Mayers (talk) 02:50, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * If I understood your rational, you might not be interested about the details, but still maybe you are curious. The quote above is taken out of context. The purpose of this quote was to explain how audacious it was to write about Popper. Here is the complete quote:


 * ""The philosophical perspective celebrated in the latest member of the distinguished Schilpp series is the most radical yet presented in The Library of Living Philosophers. Radical for this simple reason: Sir Karl Popper is not really a participant in the contemporary professional philosophical dialogue; quite the contrary, he has ruined that dialogue. If he is on the right track, then the majority of professional philosophers the world over have wasted or are wasting their intellectual careers. The gulf between Popper's way of doing philosophy and that of the bulk of contemporary professional philosophers is as great as that between astronomy and astrology. [new line] I believe that Karl Popper is on the right track""

- W.W. Bartley, III


 * It's not less interesting when we see the context. My point is that this could be interesting in an article about Popper, but not about falsifiability, unless we expand and show how it connects to falsifiability, its history, etc. After all, we have a section about the use of falsifiability in courts of law, so it's interesting to see how the concept was received in general in different sectors of the society. Dominic Mayers (talk) 03:30, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Warped wall
And what's wrong with the edit? What's wrong with adding a picture of the thing, adding a link to Commons, or putting in sections?

-- 65.94.40.190 (talk) 04:48, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * My Bad - I misunderstood what you were doing. Undone. &mdash; Safety Cap (talk) 04:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks -- 65.94.40.190 (talk) 04:59, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Emergency service response codes
Undid revision https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Emergency_service_response_codes&oldid=846832719

Hello,

I provided an edit description for this edit: "‎New South Wales: codes published for NSW ambulance and fire & rescue are radio codes, not response codes, needs correction with actual response codes.".

The section that I removed are codes used as abbreviation in radio communication and are not actual response codes (I.e. codes that indicate urgency or rapidity of response), as such they're irrelevant to this wiki article. &mdash; 114.77.237.105 (talk)


 * Okay, that makes sense - are these the correct codes? Not sure if the source is any good http://wiki.radioreference.com/index.php/Ambulance_Service_of_NSW_(NSW)#Response_Codes

1A - Closest resource HOT immediate: 1. closest approved agency 2. Highest clinical skill 3. Minimum 3, preferably 4 responders 1B - Medical / trauma emergency - HOT immediate - Highest clinical skill (HCS) 1C - Medical / trauma emergency - HOT immediate - Basic life support (BLS) 2A - Immediate mobilisation - COLD immediate - HSC ambulance to be at patient location within 30 mins of call 2B - Nearest available resource - COLD - BLS ambulance to be at patient location within 30 mins of call 2C - Nearest available resource COLD BLS ambulance to be at patient location within 60 mins of call R3 - Priority medical COLD Time critical pre-arranged response time (1hr or 2hr) R4 - Priority aero-medical COLD Time critical pre-arranged response to fixed/rotary wing aircraft R5 - Routine appointments COLD Medical / treatment appointments eg. Scans, dialysis etc R6 - Stretcher / walk after treatment COLD Post medical treatments eg. Scans, dialysis R7 - General transport COLD Discharge / inter-facility / convalescent / palliative care / transfers etc R8 - Sporting attendance COLD Event standby R9 - Major incidents HOT / COLD Major incidents as per ASNSW policy, events that require seperation from other incidents
 * &mdash; Safety Cap (talk) 05:25, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Your comments on my reply are welcome
In case you have not seen it, I have replied to you. The tldr version is thank you, it is an improvement - the format is better, but I am still not sure what is your specific rational for the long footnote that presents the view of Rafe Champion about Bartley III? If you have a (sourced) view on the reception of the concept of falsifiability among philosophers or in other sectors of the society, this will be welcome. Dominic Mayers (talk) 11:52, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Formal consensus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Agenda ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Formal_consensus check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Formal_consensus?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Judas and the Black Messiah, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles King. 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) 06:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Association behavior analysis revert
Hi! I don’t know why my comment was replaced, but the revert was because someone undid work that was discussed on the talk page without gaining any consensus. You can see OR in it. PsyNtst (talk) 14:00, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Hey! The person who reverted the contributions of PsyNtst and then I tried to fix. You reverted my fix, but his edits were factually inaccurate. Check the talk page - no consensus! Please help return it to an appropriate article for Wiki. PsyNtst (talk) 23:15, 2 September 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) 00:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I voted!

SPID:     52521 -BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-

hQGMA8Wo2EpyHocMAQv9HhOLldw20tSXHNPvSfDtbsYtDE81y11julWRsfsKGNSb 4TSsqRKlW6GMoCPK9XNZb84JAWQcVfWgzu3KC4obFoy7fw3uEU+/XhaYYjgFAImy /0ULrPnmu9tomPemNaHp4yVfKp3y4Xn6fsH7lehaH6Kj/C/ErDJ0Od5ymLT6IAx1 +Qw2T2OpaB8Fr4AjwRL+8F/FId/SykXNNL7P12FBoXFSe43JMImUQeP73ku1YqVR 9oYxzMAoBUITcAqJE5lnSzSXF4OXSmPcFfXbB5+ZXeunyA35H3BfLf8gdCGzOsEV N9o9QrYjPzfJmJPjCrPuIdj++VYsnFlu7ViJQE85/+Lnm8/jkVQn6HSIhugpqcSX BYTxCKko6N7nKWcVfy4CKnHR9iyjpFObFci2q/HzFuDn1Y0KTR2w1pL0RCGXFN3Z VmMAB8tPmNoZPxVPc5J2BdmB1lww1yMZnXpE7eG5tecP2i8q3qNbb6kwQjZbvUJA FZa9Qq28JEwhmKkRXcGb0ukBOfMIrIhk8ikLulwddTyH7YxUGMKOTbmIf2yb3pY8 K9VeXN7oSbvceQ/dPSHIklKaT5q6lHpb2Ed3QcNpKo4JrF5lN5pcvJS/GstYwGmr HiZAB8044DxEBGJa7sCGcXnGcwCYdbxzTwPVciYYPDMqnNns+zf7VT6d5dZEwnqq /q/xXFMzZXAMPoKHD8Vt//biuP10zMVOt3/e0lxT3EFg8tL0ZqpoYDtqnr7sC+NN Z+nopoTWtYU8FA16JrO2O5BWCrvqxqvsgrq669NLvBBYQl6zdto0wX1TvL/FDBny BoinP2oA0O2Zj4+2cq0GA04QhVzps4soovwYtwuBJ42NQfcb4Jc+zLwlhTqStw9v xDn1Nl7JyWgqeIV0EQ0edtcfVl5jbueZ2vwGu+Ne+aBIr4elWYqY6GWyQj2NHgMa 5eu4/9+jJBwSXQvlIRSeU36V+twyMnd0b69A7Xlm09Zrpp0Rd44w6KdBZxgu5vOw FPu5ZBOFkt5RbOQW/8yx2PdrB+KeuuetS8Yb94w7+h9QhmTp0XIjQ6ndUAlNXfTv uY6U9tgxeBIoFNr8VniCvHxSFGIz8gGFNdmKfDQDkLsNKQe5Q+lB2f/2Psk37xis vRyMCUWEd/KYJBu6B2rNPyXQjyg4JsPEuKjGTMy8cyYnpWAB3Mh5En+5WZE1sziK ccDIvWw2Ppc0pm07dirzi3Lnf8wsC8LUVQUBlDY40BM5DcNm3dThXvhcNvRO7ecD 5gWs9IjplmhUVemGlVRAS6ymcvDg+lc2NDWbRBZMZvE+SvPIeQJBgJ46mX+zeQOf 9Q+2IgvyfvSWy4zr7UZ1L3gep7Dyh8GZCgH3w6h3t5KATCBWYxgfOHK+a1uJir1e yeaaHvStGi4JLTuS56v54xIMU72G0OGgmpsHee/AyBYlVHf6QJVQqkfGXOGQUgQc Q5PDWNqmVNU/Za4mbuPXLQY1ERIVydPsbrCD3x2oEX7OR3U94PWqYVk5e7sKXBMg JGnj5ZxKzMecPxzcEmnoywLTI4FOwGaJ39JVxrkQDq3SPUhdH1yg1UnlB2uVFw4H r7x+T0lpCWr14cepY/9l87BxUd/rBh2De/ekwlcH59GKzsrirPZeOuNE90oDbg+6 YclW10xjKsYy8j4Tgs01rIG67i+sX3uhAxXTZjEaljJrx+8pNzJabJjY1ZSi9saw 4U3vF+81biDsluA= =P2pB -END PGP MESSAGE-
 * &mdash; Safety Cap (talk) 14:56, 11 December 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) 00:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)