User talk:WilhelmsCamel

Welcome!
Hello, WilhelmsCamel, 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:


 * 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

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

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 should respond shortly. Again, welcome! I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @  03:40, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

November 2019
Hello, I'm JackintheBox. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Lebanon—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. J ACKINTHE  B  OX   • TALK 03:42, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Levant. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. J ACKINTHE  B  OX   • TALK 03:43, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring
In place of continuing your edit war on Benevolent dictatorship, you should use the talk page to resolve the dispute. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 06:36, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

May I ask which page does our query belong? WilhelmsCamel (talk) 07:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Military Rule in Algeria moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Military Rule in Algeria, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. buidhe 20:18, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

It’s alright, the page isn’t important at all WilhelmsCamel (talk) 09:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

First Republic of Egypt moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, First Republic of Egypt, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Celestina007 (talk) 12:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! WilhelmsCamel (talk) 12:51, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: First Republic of Egypt (July 11)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DannyS712 was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:First Republic of Egypt and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:First Republic of Egypt, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "Db-g7" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help 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_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:First_Republic_of_Egypt Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DannyS712&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:First_Republic_of_Egypt reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DannyS712 (talk) 08:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I made a better article so the draft is not needed anymore. WilhelmsCamel (talk) 09:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of First Republic of Egypt
Hello, WilhelmsCamel

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Govvy, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I've proposed an article that you started, First Republic of Egypt, for deletion because it meets one or more of our deletion criteria, and I don't think that it is suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The particular issue can be found in the notice that is now visible at the top of the article.

If you wish to contest the deletion:


 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&action=edit Edit the page]
 * 2) Remove the text that looks like this:
 * 3) Click the  button.

If you object to the article's deletion, please remember to explain why you think the article should be kept on the article's talk page and improve the page to address the issues raised in the deletion notice. Otherwise, it may be deleted later by other means.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with. And remember to sign your reply with. Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Govvy (talk) 12:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Are you sure you’re deleting the right page? I think you intend it for the draft WilhelmsCamel (talk) 15:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anti-Islam. 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) 06:28, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for informing me WilhelmsCamel (talk) 07:22, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Dictator (Modern Sense) moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Dictator (Modern Sense), does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. ~ Amkgp 💬  15:25, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dictator (Modern Sense) (September 6)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Dictator (Modern Sense) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Dictator (Modern Sense), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "Db-g7" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help 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_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Dictator_(Modern_Sense) Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Theroadislong&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Dictator_(Modern_Sense) reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 10:52, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

October 2020
Please do not add or change content, as you did at July Monarchy, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 10:32, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Understood WilhelmsCamel (talk) 12:46, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Dream-Realm moth species


Please do not create hoaxes on Wikipedia, as you did at Dream-Realm moth species. Doing so is considered to be vandalism and is prohibited. If you are interested in how accurate Wikipedia is, a more constructive test method would be to try to find inaccurate statements that are already in Wikipedia—and then to correct them if possible. If you would like to make test edits, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.  Heart  (talk) 15:32, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Apologies. If it’s not acceptable I will proceed to remove any references to it WilhelmsCamel (talk) 15:48, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Please read wp:rs and wp:or.Slatersteven (talk) 16:11, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Military Rule in Algeria


Hello, WilhelmsCamel. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Military Rule in Algeria".

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

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

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:36, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I had already abandoned the article. It may be deleted WilhelmsCamel (talk) 02:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Campsomeriella thoracica moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Campsomeriella thoracica, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. ... disco spinster   talk  17:11, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:First Republic of Egypt


Hello, WilhelmsCamel. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "First Republic of Egypt".

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

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

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 23:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

January 2021
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at WikiIslam. ''Right or wrong, you must source your edits. You've had enough warnings about various problems.'' Doug Weller  talk 13:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Mostly not putting enough sources. I’ll keep a keen eye as I’m a somewhat recent user WilhelmsCamel (talk) 14:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Dictator (Modern Sense)


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

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

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

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 23:09, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Ischiodon aegyptius moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Ischiodon aegyptius, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Owlf (talk) 11:13, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 25
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1809, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page French Empire.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Continued unsourced changes
Hello WilhelmsCamel, you seem to be knowledgeable about topics in European military history and insects; thanks for your contributions, including creations of article stubs, such as at Occupation of Saarbrücken and Nemestrinus rufipes. On the other hand, you've made modifications to a range of articles without including a citation to a reliable source.

I think this change of yours at Vichy France‎ to the dates of Vichy as client state of Nazi Germany (which I reverted as unsourced) may just have been a misunderstanding on your part of the difference between being a "client state" and "occupied". Nevertheless, seeking out sourcing for your change would have shown you that it was unwarranted.

In isolation, this one edit would be pretty minor. But I looked at your contributions, and you have a history of being reverted, even after prior warnings about lack of sourcing. For example, this change yesterday, where you added pure speculation on the cause of Prince Phillip's death. No matter how "likely" it is that he died of natural causes, you can't simply add your personal opinion to the article. Have you seen the medical examiner's report? Perhaps he died of liver failure, or a hundred other things. You cannot add your opinion to articles like this. In other contributions, I reverted your change to Muscidae and Napoleon III. Going back prior to the Vichy France edit, I've also reverted your edits to Hyles lineata, 1851 French coup d'état, and someone else reverted at Military dictatorship.

I see that this has been a problem for you in the past, and you've acquired increasingly strident warnings about providing sources which you've promised to adhere to, including a "final warning". You don't seem to have kept your side of the bargain, though, and I'm not sure if it's laziness, or if you just don't believe it matters, or you're waiting for a smackdown, or what exactly the problem is. I think you are heading straight for a WP:BLOCK, and now it just depends somewhat randomly on the timing of which happens first: whether you can successfully make a 180 degree change in your behavior before an admin gets here and notices what you've been up to, or whether they get here first and block you. Going forward, I suggest that you adhere very strongly to Wikipedia's WP:Verifiability policy and source every single one of your edits without fail by including a citation for any additions of fact in an article. (You don't need a citation for changes to punctuation, spelling, and changes of wording that don't affect what the article is saying.) If you can build up a record of 100% sourcing of all of your edits before an admin lands here, you might be able to avoid a block. Any further edits without sourcing after this message, will almost certainly end up with you blocked.

Please respond and let me know what's going on. You're clearly knowledgeable about multiple topics, and it would be a shame if you were blocked and couldn't contribute to your topics of interest. If you don't understand this message, or you need help with sourcing, I will answer any specific questions you have. Best, Mathglot (talk) 17:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for writing to me. I’m still not too knowledgeable about adding sources and many of my edits remained unsourced. Usually when my edits get reverted I’d re-edit the page providing a source this time. Of the three options you’ve provided, I believe it might be the second one. I’ve edited a lot of articles many without sources, and I’d not seen any bad come out of it so I’d been under the assumption I’d been good. I appreciate the very detailed message WilhelmsCamel (talk) 03:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Source. Every.   Change.
You're welcome. Good news, bad news: I see you've made some progress, attempting to add sources at Napoleon III. The references you added, are what is called WP:BAREURLs, but at least it's a start. Those citations are broken (I'll fix them later), but at least you're making an attempt. That's the good news.

The bad news is, at the same article just before, in this edit you "corrected" a translation of the title of Napoleon III's book that was already correct before, per existing published translations into English, visible at Google books and at Worldcat (they use the cognate "pauperism"), into an English title of your own devising ("poverty"), which is original research, and thus prohibited. You also failed to provide a source, which I've told you is going to get you WP:BLOCKed, if you don't stop doing that. Maybe you thought it was an obvious change because you're a perfect French-English bilingual; maybe you really did see that translation in a book; maybe you have that book in your personal collection with the title you used. It doesn't matter. You must source it.

Let's look at another change of yours today, at List of last words (19th century). In this edit, you corrected a sentence which incorrectly stated Napoleon III's last words. Thank you for that. However once again, you didn't add a source. Do you just happen to know the last words of 19th century historical figures by heart? Did you look it up, but decide it wasn't worth adding a source? In this case, editor came in behind you, and appropriately tagged your change as citation needed, and I followed up, easily finding two sources for it,  and also correcting your translation (which wasn't bad, but we need to use the published version, not our own).

With respect to not being "knowledgeable about adding sources", don't worry about that for now; add WP:BAREURLs inside &lt;ref> tags, if that's what you know at this point. Proper sourcing can be learned. We can come back to that, later.

This comment of yours above made me wince:

Ouch. So, even though various editors have told you about the need for citations in your edits, since you haven't been blocked for it so far you think it's okay to keep on going along the same path of just ignoring sourcing? Is that what you are saying? It sounds like you *are* waiting for that smackdown, even asking for it. Maybe you don't believe it's real.

So, here's the deal: please source every change you make going forward, unless it's just shuffling words around for clarity, or grammar/spelling mistakes that don't involve adding new information. If you slip up, I'll ask an admin to wake you up with a short block, just to show you that Wikipedia means business about WP:Verifiability, and it's not a joke. Please bear in mind, that if an admin just happens to drop by here, you may be blocked anyway, without my involvement.

I think you are out of rope here, and the way forward for you, is source everything. If you're not sure about a specific edit you want to make at some article, like whether it needs a source or not, or how to find sources, or how to write a citation for it, then ask for help at the article Talk page, *before* you make the change to the Talk page.

Here's some reading to keep you busy: Help:Citations, WP:Reliable sources. And here are three model citation templates you can use: Please copy and paste one of these, for each assertion of fact that you add to an article, filling in the fields as best you can, and leaving the fields blank that you can't fill in. (There are a lot more than just these three templates; see this list for more). Mathglot (talk) 21:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I thank you very much, I now have a sort of reference and whenever I’d need to provide a source I’ll check these in the talk page. Thank you for helping me a lot with it! WilhelmsCamel (talk) 03:19, 14 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Please have a look at the changes I made to your edits at List of last words (19th century) (here; redid translation, added sources), Battle of Sedan (here; dropped unsourced comment about health), and at Napoleon III (here; expand refs and tagged). When you do include sources, as you did at Napoleon III, please be sure that the sources you provide actually do support the content you add to the article. In this case, I've tagged these additions as failed verification, which means I don't see how the references you provided are relevant in these cases.  I may have missed something, or you may need to change those sources to other ones. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 07:07, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ischiodon aegyptius has been accepted
 Ischiodon aegyptius, 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 Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs 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=Ischiodon_aegyptius 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! Gpkp  [ u • t • c ] 07:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * It's still a brief stub, but just noting that the main problem in your early version of it (here's your fourth version) was lack of sourcing, and the effort of getting Ischiodon aegyptius to a releasable condition was largely the work of User:Gpkp, who added the sources (thanks for that!).
 * WilhelmsCamel, this is very much related to the previous section, . You get more leeway in a Draft, and it can stick around without sourcing for some time, so I'm not faulting you  for not adding them earlier.  I am saying, though, that if Gpkp found several sources, you could have done so, too, and added them yourself. So you really need to work on your sourcing. Mathglot (talk) 03:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I must thank the user as well. I’ve had a few run-ins with the issue of sources as well and I’ve accidentally messed up the article format for putting wrong characters. The issue of sources was brought up recently and I’m still working my way through them, which I have started to be better at. Thank you for reaching to me WilhelmsCamel (talk) 08:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

June 2021
Please do not use styles that are nonstandard, unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Battle of Sedan. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Thank you.

Specifically WP:MILMOS ("Decisive" is not used in infoboxes") and MOS:BOLD. FDW777 (talk) 15:05, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

My bad. This mistake wasn’t intended and I apologise WilhelmsCamel (talk) 16:34, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

July 2021
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use disruptive, inappropriate or hard-to-read formatting, as you did at Battle of Sedan, you may be blocked from editing. There is a Wikipedia Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason.

You were warned at above not to use "Decisive" in infoboxes and acknowledged it, so please stop. FDW777 (talk) 19:56, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean by “disruptive” or “hard to read”. The battle was decisive as it decided the war in one belligerent’s favour and that’s why I added it. I don’t think it would fall under this category since it’s a one-word edit that was appropriate for the context WilhelmsCamel (talk) 02:57, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Additional note: Looking back at the link, the warning came from how I arranged the commanders and leaders, and not that I used “decisive” WilhelmsCamel (talk) 05:08, 1 August 2021 (UTC)


 * My warning said Specifically WP:MILMOS ("Decisive" is not used in infoboxes") and MOS:BOLD. FDW777 (talk) 15:05, 5 July 2021 (UTC). The warning was specifically in relation to the use of "Decisive", as well as the incorrect use of bold. "Decisive" is not used in infoboxes. FDW777 (talk) 07:20, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

"First Republic of Egypt" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect First Republic of Egypt and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 6 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:16, 6 August 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) 01:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)