User talk:SkoraPobeda

Welcome!
Hello SkoraPobeda and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions seem to be advertising or for promotional purposes. Wikipedia does not allow advertising. For more information on this, please see: If you still have questions, there is a new contributor's help page, or you can write   below this message along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia: I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome!
 * Policy on neutral point of view
 * Guideline on spam
 * Guideline on external links
 * Guideline on conflict of interest
 * FAQ for Organizations
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and how to develop articles
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * Article wizard for creating new articles
 * Simplified Manual of Style

Disambiguation link notification for December 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jaysh al-Islam, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Adra and Syrian Christians (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) 09:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of military equipment used by Syrian opposition forces, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page NSV (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) 09:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

March 2014
Please do not add or change content, as you did to BMD-2, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. ( Hohum  @ ) 17:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Syrian Civil War sanctions
Your recent editing history at Battle of Aleppo (2012–present) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war on Syrian Civil War topics. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the one-revert rule of the Syrian Civil War sanctions, which state that an editor must not perform more than one revert on a single page of Syrian Civil War topic 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 one-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the one-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. GreyShark (dibra) 20:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I apologize for breaking the one-revert rule. However, I am not engaged in an edit war as of now. Before, I wasn't aware that adding back information in less than 24 hours that is reverted by a user counts as a revert as well. I tried to keep what I edited by adding less of what user KajMetz considered "too detailed", but it resulted in an unintentional edit war. After his 2nd revert, I understood that the "unreliable sources" he was meaning was Facebook posts. So we came to a compromise afterwards. In the future, I will be more cautious of my actions, since I don't want to get blocked. But also understand that these unintentional edit wars are bound to happen with Syrian Civil War articles over disputes of which news source is considered credible. SkoraPobeda (talk) 21:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Ukraine Separatist Regions
Hi, I was looking at your edits for List of active separatist movements in Europe and while I was able to find articles referring to the Odessa People's Republic, I could find nothing referring to the declared peoples republics in Zaporizhia, Mykolaiv, or Dnipropetrovsk. Could you please add sources to these? Sol-nemisis 21:27, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Sol-nemisis. Zaporizhia, Mykolaiv, and Dnipropetrovsk People's Republics are not officially declared yet. They are just listed there due to the possibility of them being formed by separatists. I wasn't even aware of Odessa declaring itself as a republic today before you added a source. Nevertheless, I will keep my eyes on the current events and try to add sources if a new republic is announced. SkoraPobeda (talk) 21:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

May 2014
Please do not add or change content, as you did to Equipment of the Syrian Army, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Thomas.W talk 14:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Donbass People's Militia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page B-10. 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) 08:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Battle of Ilovaisk, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vostok Battalion. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited United Armed Forces of Novorossiya, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Republican Guard. 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) 12:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Aleppo offensive (October 2015), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Islamic Front. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:47, 3 November 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) 17:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of equipment of the United Armed Forces of Novorossiya, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trencher. 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) 15:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ukrainian Airmobile Forces, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ukrainian. 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) 10:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Donetsk Conflict Map
Hello, i am not a wikipedia editor. But I saw you have contributed a lot to the Donetsk Airport battle 2 wiki page. I have been geo-locating videos posted on the internet (Youtube) of Donetsk and its direct surroundings: https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=z0KS2GhUPROQ.kOOF4lez59QA Could you add the map onto the wikipedia page as maybe a source or a separate item?. The map shows which part of the city has been damaged and where military units have been based or have been firing from. There are over 2000 objects on the map, all based on video material. It is a real great representation of what has happened in Donetsk (and its surroundings) because users on the internet can watch actual videos of the events. Thank you Jimie55555qs (talk) 11:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Jimie55555qs, thank you for the informative link. Unfortunately I don't think I would be able to upload this. Wikipedia is very strict when it comes to photos, if it is not indicated anywhere that it is free to share under a certain license, then the file will eventually be removed due to copyright violation. You are more than welcome to help me find good quality screenshots of videos on YouTube such as Gennadiy Dubavoy's channel where in most of his video descriptions it clearly says "Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)" instead of "Standard YouTube License". If you ever want to request an ongoing battle map such as in Syria or Ukraine, go ask my good friend who does svg quality graphics. SkoraPobeda (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Major terrorist attack.
You recently made an edit on List of terrorist incidents, January–June 2016 and added a very large attack, and you seem to know quite a bit about it. Major attacks like this tend to get their own articles and a place on the list. Since you seem to have already done the research on the attack, I suggest you make an article about it and post a link to it in its section on the list. Beejsterb (talk) 04:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Beejsterb. That is a good idea, I will probably make an independent article for it later and add a link. The reason why I added the details was because a hideous massacre as this committed by Al-Nusra and Ahrar ash-Sham should not be swept under the carpet. SkoraPobeda (talk) 04:35, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree. It is unfortunate that the incident was missed. Beejsterb (talk) 05:18, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

southfront.org as a source
My problem with https://southfront.org is that the authors of articles on this website write about anything Ukrainian with so much contempt that it seems they are not interested to tell us the truth but are more interested in making Ukraine look bad. You did not do so when using southfront.org as a source. I also think that those 40,000 volunteers that the separatists think can be mobilized is whisefull thinking of DNR/LNR leadership at best. Who are those 40,000 people? Girkin complained on more than one occasion about the unwillingness of locals to join the armed groups that seized control from the local authorities in the east. I find it unlikely that the locals are now have become part of these 40,000 volunteers that the separatists think can be mobilized. —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  13:58, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Also the southfront.org claim As the Syrian government forces continue their advances on both Aleppo and Raqqa, with the aid of renewed Russian airstrikes, the US may pressure the Poroshenko government to open a second front against Russia in Donbass looks very odd.... —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  14:27, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Also according to WP:SELFPUBLISH southfront.org should not be used as a source on Wikipedia because it does not disclose its authors so there is no way to tell if these authors are "established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  14:38, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that the website does disclose its authors. But Mr Brian Kalman work has has previously not been published by reliable third-party publications. —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  14:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand where you are coming from since I remember your contributions to the Euromaidan article back in 2013 and 2014. It is obvious that South Front has a slant towards the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics, there is no hiding that. But when you say they are not interested in the truth and "are more interested in making Ukraine look bad", that is not true. The people who live in those republics have quite a different perspective than people who live in the rest of Ukraine, I can confirm that from several people that I know from there. South Front covers events which average RS minimally covers such as the Ukrainian military/paramilitary shelling of Donetsk, Gorlovka, Spartak, Lugansk and others which is usually blamed on the "terrorists" in Ukrainian media. Please don't think that just because South Front isn't promoting a "united Ukraine" that it is automatically anti-Ukrainian. On the United Armed Forces of Novorossiya article, the 40,000 volunteers number that I put up clearly says "DPR estimate", because it comes directly from Zakharchenko (sourced from PolitNavigator) South Front in the end still admits that there is Russian involvement, which raises the credibility significantly as opposed to sites like RT that deny it all the time. If you ever go to the Syrian war battle articles, you will notice that many people source Al-Masdar News. Despite them also having a Syrian government slant, they are a non-profit organization that reports things that go outside the Syrian state-run media. SkoraPobeda (talk) 14:39, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I do welcome different points of view but southfront.org is overdoing it. I don't like that they are seem to push a point of view (I also think that Ukrayinska Pravda is doing this since Euromaidan, and don't like this also). I have no problem with your style of editing Wikipedia since you are not pushing a point of view. I do not have a problem on how you used southfront.org but it might be better to have some RS next to their references (unfortunately hard to find in the English language). I have been in Donbass (also before the fighting started) but found that they are not as open as in other regions of Ukraine.... so I can not tell what they really feel..... I know only people who used to live there, and they never open up to me.... —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  15:13, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I thank you for your understanding. I also want to mention that lines that I added from South Front before like "On 14 September 2015, there was a war banner ceremony at the newly established Donetsk Higher Military Command School" are neutral and mention nothing about any "junta" or "Western-backed", etc. I want to keep that and the mentioning of Russian material support in the Equipment and Relationship with Russia paragraphs. But I do agree that until a more reliable source mentions the fact that there are 40,000 volunteer reserves willing to fight, I should remove that. What do you think? SkoraPobeda (talk) 15:30, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in responding. I wanted some time to think. I think that the "40,000 volunteer reserves willing to fight" (Zakharchenko claim) does not belong in the Infobox because there is no room for nuances in Infoboxes. I don't object to including the Zakharchenko claim somewhere else in the article as long as it is made clear that it is a claim and not a third party confirmed fact. As far as other South Front information you used; I see no real problems there. —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  17:49, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem. I will remove it from the infobox. I am glad that we had this dialogue, it shows that we editors of different perspectives can get along just fine. SkoraPobeda (talk) 18:35, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

—  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  21:45, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey
Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Consistent spelling
Hi. It reflects a WP:Neutral point of view to generally use article title spellings which reflect the broad consensus and serve the readers by being WP:CONSISTENT, e.g. Donbas, war in Donbas, Luhansk, Luhansk People's Republic, Sloviansk, etcetera, including in translations from other languages. See MOS:GEO, which states “a place should generally be referred to consistently by the same name as in the title of its article.” Normal exceptions are direct quotations of English-language sources and citing English titles. Russifying names in selected contexts, without a rationale from our guidelines, may give the false impression that Wikipedia sympathizes with the subjects of articles. —Michael Z. 22:53, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Archiving notice
Hey! During your moving of Talk:Pro-Russian separatist forces in Donbas, you forgot to update the archive location. All you need to do is adjust the  parameter in the   template to the new page name. Don't worry, I've fixed this for you. Just keep this in mind if you move a page in the future. Thanks! Aidan9382 (talk) 10:17, 20 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Oh, thank you Aiden. I'll keep it in mind the next time! SkoraPobeda (talk) 15:37, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

August 2022
Hi SkoraPobeda! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor&#32;at Kraken Regiment that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. TylerBurden (talk) 23:31, 19 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I appreciate you pointing it out, I'll keep that in mind next time. However, despite the Washington Post using the term 'liberate', this is a non-neutral wording that is not used on Wikipedia when it comes to conflicts. I would kindly ask you to revert it to how I wrote it. And if we want to get into more details, just because Kraken is a Ukrainian unit fighting against an occupying force like Russia doesn't automatically mean they're liberators. Kraken is just as notorious as the Azov Regiment for their war crimes; not just against Russian or separatist soldiers, but against Ukrainian civilians as well. Just today, they executed around 100 troops of the Ukrainian 58th Motorized Infantry Brigade for abandoning their posts near Udy, Kharkiv oblast. Here is an Iranian source for it. It isn't a Western source, so I'm assuming it won't be looked at as 'reliable' enough to be put in the article. But real sources on the ground confirm that Ukraine has ultranationalist blocking detachment units which punish standard/conscript Ukrainian Army forces that withdraw during battles. SkoraPobeda (talk) 00:04, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Liberated is used on for example World War II, which has passed as a good article on Wikipedia, and the wording certainly seems to fit when it comes to removing a hostile foreign force from occupied villages. As for the rest, the controversies surrounding the regiment are mentioned on the article. I can't speak for the reliability on that source, but if you think it is reliable then feel free to add it. TylerBurden (talk) 00:15, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems the actual source that the Iranian source is citing is the Russian Defense Ministry, I am sure you are familiar with Russian propaganda in this war, so is that really something you think is reliable and neutral? TylerBurden (talk) 00:18, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Before I say anything, I want to mention that I appreciate that we are having this discussion here on my talk page. Considering that for 8 years the Ukrainian Defense Ministry has been lying through their teeth about a genocidal civil war where they blamed everything on Russia, yes. I think for balancing purposes both Ukrainian and Russian military statements should be shown, but of course I'm sure somebody somewhere will tell me that it's not Wikipedia policy... I think that people or organizations instantly dismissing Russia's sources is very much a reason why nobody truly understands this war. Are you a Russian speaker? Can you distinguish between Ukrainian propaganda and Russian propaganda? No, most people only follow what the Western media says and go along with it. You must not dismiss how dangerous these criminals from Azov and Kraken Regiments are. They are literal neo-Nazis who have no remorse for who they label their enemies. Primary source footage from Telegram proves their war crimes. I would know, because I still have family in the Donbas region that are under Right Sector's occupation... If you don't know who they are, I suggest you to research more. SkoraPobeda (talk) 00:32, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that you are discussing as well instead of edit warring like many others do when they are reverted. Of course both sides are participating in propaganda, so the Ukrainian Defense Ministry is also not being used as a reference. Both of the citations used on the article are independent, and for neutrality based on Wikipedia policy (as you mentioned) that's really the best we can do here. I am sorry to hear that you and your family are directly impacted by this war, and genuinely wish both you and them the best. I understand this conflict is complicated, but I am not willing to use the Russian Defense Ministry as a source because of their own numerous proven lies and blatant propaganda specifically in this conflict. If you know of more reliable sources covering Kraken, then please add them as I have been asking for help with that but it's had relatively limited coverage. TylerBurden (talk) 00:46, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It's good that we can discuss things in a more civil manner, considering how much anger and just general rage this conflict has brought from both sides. I appreciate the good wishes for me and my family. Though I will say, the real reason for why Kraken is rarely covered by RS is because that would reveal the fact that they are indeed extremists. As of right now, it's hard for any sources to come to terms with it. But mark my words, just like the so-called "Syrian rebels" were eventually revealed to be Al-Qaeda linked head choppers, the future image of Azov, Kraken, Right Sector and many other Ukrainian units will be open for all to see. The Western media tends to also skew any activity that Russia does in other countries, they have never shown a single positive report on them. From the Chechen Wars, to Georgia, to Crimea, to Syria. It's all constant negative coverage. Which again, it's a crying shame that people who believe Russia is this evil power hungry country can't actually read or watch Russian/Ukrainian sources themselves to see how vile and insidious the Ukrainian propaganda has been since the start of the Donbas Civil War. Russia makes state lies too yes, but Ukraine's lies are hardly ever exposed. SkoraPobeda (talk) 00:58, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Azov has been widely covered even in Western media, especially their links with the far right, you can see that on the Azov Regiment article. Perhaps you are correct and more things will surface about Kraken as well, time will tell but for now we're left with limited material to work with. TylerBurden (talk) 01:11, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * On a sidenote, I was just able to find their shoulder sleeve insignia. I might be able to create this in Photoshop in the near future and post it in the infobox for your article. I've done that with several units in the Syrian and Donbas wars. SkoraPobeda (talk) 01:28, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That would be great if you could do that, I wanted to add their insignia to the infobox when I created the article but there are no images related to the unit on Wikimedia Commons. I asked around but had no luck with it, and have neither the skill nor knowledge to produce it myself. No need to stress it of course, but if you have time and would like to do it I'd appreciate it. TylerBurden (talk) 01:39, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:South Front
Hello, SkoraPobeda. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:South Front, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 10:01, 1 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) 01:26, 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) 00:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)