User talk:Azcolvin429

Hi, there's "<ref name="eLS2012">Sætre, Glenn-Peter. (2012). Reinforcement. ''eLS''.</ref>^{[clarification needed]}" in the article. Maybe you're the person to fix it? Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:02, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the link. I don't know a better way to cite it. It could certainly include the DOI. I have cited all the eLS articles I have used in the articles like this. What format would you suggest citing it in? Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 19:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe like this? Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 19:18, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sætre, Glenn-Peter (2012). "Reinforcement". eLS. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. doi:10.1002/9780470015902.a0001754.pub3.

Absolutely. Or one can put the full thing at the end and use the sfn or other harvard template to refer to it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:25, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Reinforcement (speciation) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 10:52, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On 20 October 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Reinforcement (speciation), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that reinforcement is one of the few cases in which natural selection can directly influence the origin of new species? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Reinforcement (speciation). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Reinforcement (speciation)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih^Talk 00:01, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I noticed that you made the map on the worldwide distribution of marsupials. For North America, your map uses the range of the Virginia Opossum from this map. However, the latter map is definitely incorrect. Opossums can absolutely be found in Wisconsin—in fact, I saw one as roadkill this morning. They and I have been residents of Wisconsin for multiple decades. Perhaps a better distribution range map could be found here. I was hoping that you might use your particular set of skills to rectify the map situation for both the Virginia Opossum and Marsupials. Thanks. BirdValiant (talk) 18:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BirdValiant, the spatial data for both of those maps comes from the IUCN. The maps shown here are based on the IUCN data and have been used for the creation of the two maps in question. Wisconsin likely does have opossums, as one must consider that biogeographic distributions are approximated data developed by sampling sites, niche modeling, etc. This document might help make sense of it. Wikipedia relies on published, reliable sources for inclusion. It is likely that, somewhere in the scientific literature, detailed, higher resolution mapping of North American marsupials exists. However, these particular maps depend on the IUCN data that is often generated from more than one study. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 20:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will do some research to find out what sources the IUCN data comes from. The book chapter you linked here provides a valuable source for developing a distribution map of Didelphis virginiana. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 20:16, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As it is known in the case of the Virginia Opossum that the IUCN data is factually inaccurate, I suggest adapting the map from the the Gardner and Sunquist chapter, as others have done. BirdValiant (talk) 20:52, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BirdValiant, I updated the global distribution map with the Gardner & Sunquist (2003) and Kanda et al. (2003). Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 23:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, nice job! You're the best! BirdValiant (talk) 17:23, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Azcolvin429. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year! Best wishes for 2018, —PaleoNeonate – 13:45, 29 December 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change

[[User: Azcolvin429|''<font color="Green">Andrew Z. Colvin</font>'']]&nbsp;• [[User talk:Azcolvin429|''<font color="Green">Talk</font>'']] : Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk

to

[[User: Azcolvin429|<i style="color: Green">Andrew Z. Colvin</i>]]&nbsp;• [[User talk:Azcolvin429|<i style="color: Green">Talk</i>]] : Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk

—Anomalocaris (talk) 23:10, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know! It should be corrected now.Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 06:02, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! —Anomalocaris (talk) 02:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		The Science Barnstar
		I just reviewed the article you started on the History of speciation. I'm incredibly impressed with how thorough and well-cited the article is. And yet you claim to have "rushed to get this article out as soon as possible". Well done - in this and your other work. Wikipedia is fortunate to have an editor like you. paul2520 (talk) 02:51, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the compliments! :) Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 03:19, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On 12 February 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article History of speciation, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that the history of speciation largely began with Charles Darwin's publication of On the Origin of Species? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/History of speciation. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:37, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Reinforcement (speciation) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article Reinforcement (speciation) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Reinforcement (speciation) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:21, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Glossary of speciation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Extant (check to confirm | 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) 09:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Laboratory experiments of speciation, Azcolvin429!

Wikipedia editor Cwmhiraeth just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

A well-referenced and interesting article, a useful addition to Wikipedia. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:49, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

To reply, leave a comment on Cwmhiraeth's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Good morning. While studying your beautiful image of the Sun's neighbourhood I noticed the label Formalhaut, which as far as I can tell is a misspelling of Fomalhaut. I'd have noticed it sooner, but I actually thought that was the name at first! Waltham, The Duke of 08:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have noticed the error but have not had the time to correct it. Thank you for letting me know! Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 09:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On 11 April 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Laboratory experiments of speciation, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that fruit flies have been used extensively in laboratory experiments of speciation? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Laboratory experiments of speciation. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Laboratory experiments of speciation), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On 15 April 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Evidence for speciation by reinforcement, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that evidence for speciation by reinforcement has been found across a wide range of organisms? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Evidence for speciation by reinforcement. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Evidence for speciation by reinforcement), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Vanamonde (talk) 00:01, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The section on Birds is in dire need of disambiguation. I'm reading the cited article at [1] for reference.

The section starts out

The flycatcher

Ficedula hypoleuca has brown females and black and white males,

while F. albicollis has brown females and black and white males.

This is not nearly as helpfully descriptive as expected? Was the intent to say that both species are near identically colored and patterned, with small differences (the amount of white at neck and sometimes white on tail sides)? That in their separate allopatric areas they are very similar to each other?

(It might help also to note the common names here, the pied flycatcher Ficedula hypoleuca and the collared flycatcher F. albicollis, to reinforce slightly that different birds are being discussed. Hmm, hypoleuca for having less white at the neck vs. albicollis having a complete white collar? Wow, Latin so transparent?)

It continues

Brown males are only found in the zone where the two species populations overlap, which the brown morph is thought to have evolved to prevent sterile hybrids.

Umm, which species has the brown morph? Both? If both, how could that do anything?

After reading the article (a couple of times) it appears that it is saying that in the sympatric areas (see figure 1) F. hypoleuca tends(?) toward the brown male form, while F. albicollis maintains its allopatric form. Thus it is F. hypoleuca females preferentially choosing the non-allopatric coloration - at least within the sympatric areas - that is key to all this.

Anyway, the text as-is says "mysterious magic" without describing that magic. Can you revise? Shenme (talk) 02:25, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like there was an incorrect statement. I edited it to clarify. Hopefully this helps.

"The flycatchers exhibit a pattern that suggests premating isolation is being reinforced by sexual selection. The pied flycatcher (Ficedula hypoleuca) has brown females, brown males, and black-and-white males. The related collard flycatcher (Ficedula albicollis) has brown females and only black-and-white males. The two species exist in separate populations that overlap in a zone of sympatry. In the range of overlap, only brown males of F. hypoleuca exist and are thought to have evolved the brown plumage to prevent hybridization.

Mating choice tests of the species find that females of both species choose conspecific males in sympatry, but heterospecific males in allopatry. The patterns could suggest mimicry, driven by interspecific competition; however, song divergence has been detected that shows a similar pattern to the mating preferences."

Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 03:41, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Azcolvin429, thank you for all your contributions. Given your interest in editing bird articles, you may be interested in WP:BIRD which contains many resources to help you. The associated talk page is fairly active and would welcome your input. 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 02:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Temnothorax rugatulus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brood (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thank you for phab:T195275. Tangentially related to this, a quick question: Did you see the link asking you to report the error in English, or was it in another language? /Johan (WMF) (talk) 11:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it was in English. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 21:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If it is worth mentioning, User:Johan (WMF), the error no longer appears but the image does not load in the page view. The thumbnails load and the full size loads, but the image in the page view just has a transparent background with the text of the file name overlaid. Not sure why. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 02:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Your star chart is tremendous. I first found it here: http://theconversation.com/is-alpha-centauri-the-right-place-to-search-for-life-elsewhere-57716 I'm an editor and would like to include a modified version in a book that I am working on. Would you be willing to add stars that I request to your chart? And allow me to reproduce it or a version of it? If so, I'd like to get in touch via email to arrange details. Best, Meliva Koch — Preceding unsigned comment added by MelivaKoch (talk • contribs) 00:30, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Azcolvin429. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Media bias against Bernie Sanders 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Media bias against Bernie Sanders 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. — Chevvin 20:26, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for having created them, fantastic illustrative work ! I am thinking of producing a physical version (puzzle or diverse 3d objects) of the power of then with them for a classroom. Did you use a particular software ? Beaucouplusneutre (talk) 17:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Media coverage of Bernie Sanders 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Media coverage of Bernie Sanders (3rd nomination) 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. WMSR (talk) 21:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Allochronic speciation at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 00:30, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 5 January 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ecological speciation, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that ecological speciation can give rise to new species by the way animals interact with their environment and each other? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ecological speciation. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Ecological speciation), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 1 April 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Allochronic speciation, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that having sex at different times may produce new species? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Allochronic speciation. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Allochronic speciation), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With the creation of Criticism of credit scoring systems in the United States (split of content that had been recently added to Credit score in the United States), is there any particular reason that the article wasn't restored to its state prior to the recently-added content?

The structure we are left with in the version of the article following the split makes any existing problems worse. Specifically, in the old version, "FICO credit scores" are directly under "credit scoring models", as are VantageScore and other credit scores, while in the new version, FICO scores are the only category of credit scores under "credit scoring models", while other credit scoring models are relegated to a separate "other credit scores" section. Also, in the pre-existing article, these different categories of credit scores were loosely ranked from greater relevance to lesser relevance (e.g. FICO, the most well-known scoring family, is listed first, followed by VantageScore the next most well-known scoring family).

There may be some sections in the pre-existing article that are more suitable for the Criticism article, but I think it's fine to do that over time. I'm just mostly focused on retaining the pre-existing structure of the original article except to the extent that there's a good reason to be changing it. Fabrickator (talk) 05:39, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. I say we restore the original article but keep the criticism and controversy section that summarizes the new main article. Would that be a good solution? Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 05:56, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please go ahead with that proposal. Thanks! Fabrickator (talk) 06:05, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I believe I corrected it. Double check if it looks right. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 06:29, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To Andrew Z. Colvin

I've wondered if you ever lent your Universe art to any books, as I've to recall seeing a detailed diagram like yours in an astronomy book before 2010. Do you know the diagram was yours, as it seems to match your chart?

If so, that was your diagram in said book. I want to say it was an excellent visual form to be seen in an astronomy book. Do you remember any of the publishers you might've lent your diagram to since I've lost my copy of said book and hope to retrieve the book for my father? If you knew who any of the books you might've published from 2003 until 2009. (Note: Not asking you to buy, but if you could remember any of the books)

By the way, I love your other art and the other things on your Wikipedia page.

PrinceTanglemane (talk) 17:11, 13 January 2022

Thank you for the kind words. So unfortunately I don't have a running list of publishers and books, but there are a LOT. I know some of the major names have used some of my work, but so have many small publishers. From memory, it is even in some museums. I wish I could be of further help! Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 19:35, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for the excellent compilation of graphics for our place in the universe! Do you have something like a csv / hdf5 file with the respective information for each pane? I'd love something like a list of positions + colors + luminosities for nearby stars, or positions + sizes of nearby dwarf galaxies. Thanks again for your work! Gohlanblack (talk) 22:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The citation which you originally inserted for "The Great Risk Shift ..." (now in Criticism of credit scoring systems in the United States) does not contain a page number, so there's no reasonable way to verify this. (Frankly, I am somewhat skeptical of the suggestion that FICO is somehow motivated by a "loss of collective social services" ... but I should at least see the supporting source before reaching a conclusion.) Please consider including a brief quote if it's not in the text that's freely available. Thanks. Fabrickator (talk) 05:30, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So it is actually the premise of the book in its entirety. The thesis is that economic insecurity is being driven by neoliberal policy and one of the methods is to eliminate social safety nets. The book talks extensively about credit and debt. Unfortunately, Google Books does not have all the pages available, so I will have to order the book to find the exact reference. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 06:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Azcolvin429. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:26, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Goodone121. I noticed that you recently made an edit to Alliance Defending Freedom in which your edit summary did not appear to describe the change you made. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 23:51, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please note that A class requires two impartial reviews. Schierbecker (talk) 04:36, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Luxury Home has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 12 § Luxury Home until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]