Lidiia Kondratieva

Please note: If your message is related to a disputed edit, the best thing to do is open a discussion on the talkpage of the article instead of leaving a message here. This way we may involve as many editors as possible instead of confining the discussion here. Wikipedia is a community effort. Let's use this community component. Thank you.

Hello, Lidiia Kondratieva, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field with your edits. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Ronz (talk) 23:06, 24 December 2017 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: Edit a page • Upload and use images • Create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review • Featured content Miscellaneous User pages • Talk pages Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

An extended welcome

Welcome to Wikipedia. I've added a welcome message to the top of this page that gives a great deal of information about Wikipedia. I hope you find it useful.

Additionally, I hope you don't mind if I share some of my thoughts on starting out as a new editor on Wikipedia: If I could get editors in your situation to follow just one piece of advice, it would be this: Learn Wikipedia by working only on non-contentious topics until you have a feel for the normal editing process and the policies that usually come up when editing casually. You'll find editing to be fun, easy, and rewarding. The rare disputes are resolved quickly and easily.

Working on biographical information about living persons is far more difficult. Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages.

If you have a relationship with the topics you want to edit, then you will need to review Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, which may require you to disclose your relationship and restrict your editing depending upon how you are affiliated with the subject matter.

Some topic areas within Wikipedia have special editing restrictions that apply to all editors. It's best to avoid these topics until you are extremely familiar with all relevant policies and guidelines.

I hope you find some useful information in all this, and welcome again. --Ronz (talk) 23:06, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

December 2017

Hello, I'm Ronz. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. [1] --Ronz (talk) 23:09, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Minnah Karlsson has been reverted.
Your edit here to Minnah Karlsson was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://minnahkarlssonidol.wordpress.com/) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 13:32, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Famousbirthdays.com as a source

Hi Lidiia Kondratieva. I noticed that you recently used famousbirthdays.com as a source for information in Ellie Lambeti . Please note that there is general consensus that famousbirthdays.com does not meet the reliable sourcing criteria for the inclusion of personal information in such articles. (See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_153#Is_famousbirthdays.com_a_reliable_source_for_personal_information). If you disagree, let's discuss it. Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 16:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.)

Edwin Markham (British Army officer) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Alma and Royal Military College

William Markham (bishop) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to William Markham

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lucy Young, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Roxbury, Jet and Attack Squadron (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 22

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Anders Ygeman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to SSU and FRA

Darryl Wimberley (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Lafayette County High School

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Cookprint

The article Cookprint has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Term introduced by just one writer - needs more evidence of notability to justify an article on this neologism.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PamD 11:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Cookprint for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cookprint 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/Cookprint until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. PamD 12:08, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I answered you at the article's talkpage Lidiia Kondratieva (talk) 12:23, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 30

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Christel Frese, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages ASV, ISTAF and British Championships (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC) Thanks, I've fixed it up! :) Lidiia Kondratieva (talk) 11:35, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Your help desk question

You have a response.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Naveen Jain

Hi Lidiia Kondratieva. We seem to be having difficulties communicating, and I'm not clear why or what to do at this point. Our past interactions haven't been a problem as far as I'm aware. If there's something that I missed, please let me know.

Could you please refrain from further personal comments on Talk:Naveen Jain, and consider striking out the current personal comments you have already made? Then, perhaps you could explain what you're trying to accomplish there. --Ronz (talk) 22:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Ronz, what "communicating difficulties" are you speaking about? If you mean your "garbage in, garbage out" I forgive you, but please try to be more polite next time. My attitute to you was and is good, as you have to be very brainy to do your work.

Why do you want me to refrain? Isn't the article's talkpage a place for discussion? I don't think so. Anyway I am hoping we will contribute into Wikipedia being mates. It's possible I will reconsider and delete my personal comments (but please explain why does it bother you so much?) from the talkpage only if you stop to attack the article with biased reverts which even don't have any healthy explonation in accordance with Wikipedia rules. I can't explain you what am I trying to fix there, as I have no definite plan. I will just edit the article for pleasure in accordance with all wiki rules and you will see the changes. Hope next time I will meet you at some other article. Also I would be happy to meet other editors "trying to help me" with Naveen Jain's article editing, but I am not sure they need it. As Wikipedia has hundrends of projects to contribute. Hope you agree with me. Thank you, I know you are always ready to help!:) Have a good day:)Lidiia Kondratieva (talk) 12:43, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

While I appreciate the response, I think it's inappropriate to continue like this. If you have to ask why you need to follow behavioral policy (but please explain why does it bother you so much?), and make your behavior conditional on imagined problems (only if you stop to attack the article with biased reverts which even don't have any healthy explonation in accordance with Wikipedia rules), then we need to get those problems resolved. --Ronz (talk) 16:02, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Ronz! Hope you are doing well:) Sorry you took such offense to my answer. I'll struck it out.

I remember you used harassment towards to me when I was a newcomer. I noticed you've deleted your threats towards to me from my talkpage. Thank you for it. We should make peace, no war. That's why I am trying to notice only positive sides of you. I am hoping you don't try to go like that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_Ban_a_POV_You_Dislike,_in_9_Easy_Steps. :) Ronz, please help to fix the article! We don't help Wikipedia speaking here like that. Sincerely, Lidiia Kondratieva (talk) 14:15, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I remember you used harassment towards to me when I was a newcomer.

I noticed you've deleted your threats towards to me from my talkpage.

I'm afraid I have no idea what you're talking about. Making misleading or inaccurate accusations about another editor is inappropriate. It seems this is all very personal for you. Do you want to resolve these problems or not? --Ronz (talk) 15:57, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

My dear Ronz, thank you for your extra quick answer. Sometimes I can’t be quick the same way as I devote a lot of time to my work in real life. Please don’t force me to go deeper into Wikipedia rules to prove it really was harassment. I appreciate my time. Sorry, what problem are you talking about? I don’t have any. Once I read at some forum, that when one editor has COI he tries to use all possible methods to block the opponent editor. I do hope it was some misinformation. I think you don’t want to block me, right? You just want to help me as a wiki friendly editor. Anyway “Wikipedia is not a battle field”. Lidiia

Stop your long-lasting reverts, please start to build![2]

I demand you answer my questions. [3]

only if you stop to attack the article with biased reverts which even don't have any healthy explonation in accordance with Wikipedia rules

I remember you used harassment towards to me when I was a newcomer.

I noticed you've deleted your threats towards to me from my talkpage.

Once I read at some forum, that when one editor has COI he tries to use all possible methods to block the opponent editor. I do hope it was some misinformation.

Those are some of the problems. Do you want to discuss them? --Ronz (talk) 17:03, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia +

I'm going to get other editors to look over what you've been doing [4]

I think it's not polite to treat a newcomer like that, but again it's up to you.

garbage in, garbage out [5]

Also I'm not sure it's ok to call somebody's attempt to contribuse as a "garbage".

But even those are not a problem. Because I'm not going make my talkpage a battlefield, it's not my aim. Wikipedia is not a battlefield.

Answer please, do you want to discuss your problems or to contribute? I have no concern to your problem, sorry. What interest do you have to Naveen Jain's article that you take care of it for more than 5 years? I would be extremely happy to meet our further discusiion on the article's talkpage. My dear, I invite you back to the talkpage to have some discussion about fixing the article. I have some good ideas and propositions. Lidiia Kondratieva (talk) 21:53, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I take it you haven't noticed Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#References_in_Brian_Dyson.

Addressing your concerns:

"If you continue, you may be blocked", is both factual and closely reviewed wording. It's not harassment, nor insulting, nor impolite in the context. It's about your behavior that's been well documented that you're not denying that I see. However, if you want to discuss it, we certainly can.

"I'm going to get other editors to look over what you've been doing". I'm afraid I don't see anything wrong with that. It's what's required to build strong consensus and resolve disputes. Again, if you want to discuss it...

"Garbage in, garbage out" I've already struck it out, apologized, and explained in more detail. Again, context matters. However, I am sorry that I was curt in response to the huge list of articles and the tally. It's not about you. It's about what you submitted for review on an article's talk page. I'm happy to go into further detail beyond what I've already done, but your response [6] is something that I've already noted is problematic, as has another editor. Again, if you want to discuss it...

If you don't want to make Wikipedia a battleground, then don't. --Ronz (talk) 16:31, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Dear Ronz, thank you for the explanation of your behavior. I am happy you're finally in good mood and have a desire to contribute together. I promise, next time I will bring you cookies.

Thanks for clearance about Brian Dyson's. You could be a good teacher. I will continue my work on the article and will fix the sources. How do you think, is there any way to change the article in order it doesn't remain a stub? Have a good day, Lidiia Kondratieva (talk) 20:47, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Re [7] [8] [9]:I'm afraid we're at an impasse at this point. I suggest you work from edit requests. --Ronz (talk) 03:12, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi again, thanks for your message. I answered you on the article's talkpage. Lidiia Kondratieva (talk) 16:44, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

If that's your answer, then I see no reason to respond further. --Ronz (talk) 00:17, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Steve Bennett (software entrepreneur), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daniel Schulman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Paid editing

Hello Lidiia Kondratieva. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, and that you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to Black hat SEO.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Lidiia Kondratieva. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Lidiia Kondratieva|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, please do not edit further until you answer this message. Jytdog (talk) 13:56, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

♦Omg, it's so offensive(( It all has no connection to me, because all my edits were done only for pleasure. I even can't understand what exactly could be payed for? I fixed dozens of BLP stubs and some IT companies' stubs, don't know anybody pays for it. Why did you post the accusation to my talkpage? With such a treatment nobody will have a desire to contribute to Wikipedia. Please think about it. All I received from you is mega frustrating :(( Lidiia Kondratieva (talk) 21:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

First, you have been told more than once about threading comments on talk pages and you continue to not do it. This convention is as basic as "please" and "thank you" and has many of the same functions here about making interactions go smoothly. The longer you refuse to follow this convention the more you show other editors that you don't understand how to function in this community.

Please don't be offended; it is a question.

That said, along with editing about historical figures, you have edited about a range of contemporary figures in a way that is promotional and is similar to paid editors.

Paid editing has a place in Wikipedia, but people doing that have to be rigorous in disclosing and in some other ways. Some people editing for pay think they have to hide it, and sometimes disclose after they are informed that being here as a paid editor is allowed-- there are just some additional things you have to do and some things you should do and not do. Will you please reconsider your answer? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Almost all my messages contain "please" and "thank you") even my previous one has "please". Sorry if you think I should "thank you" for the accusations.

I am a graduate student in English and editing Wikipedia is not only fun, it allows me to use my skills in English. So please point out with references what was similar to paid editing.

Do you have any power to make such accusations? I mean does Wikipedia support it?

Jytdog, you make false accusations. This is a violation of Wikipedia and since you will not stop, I must report you. Thank you, Lidiia Kondratieva (talk) 22:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

You are still not threading correctly. This is not a difficult thing to do. Put exactly one colon (:) at the beginning of your comment, if you are the first person replying. If you are replying to someone else, but one more colon in front of your comment than they put in front of theirs. You can see this very easily in the edit window. I have no idea what gave you the idea to use this "♦ " but it is not how we thread comments.

Thanks for again stating that you are not editing for pay. This remains difficult for me to believe, and so I will open a thread at COIN and the community can discuss this. Jytdog (talk) 00:43, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 04:01, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog, you can do what you want. Later we will see is there any justice in Wikipedia or not. After your numerous accusations my interest towards to Naveen Jain's article is extremely high. I want to know the reason Ronz and you "take care" of the article for so long. No other article I edited has so many discussion on its talkpage, and doesn't have such an edits history with lots of reverts. It's obvious you try to keep Jain's article in such a state whatever it costs. Very interesting.... Thank you, Lidiia Kondratieva (talk) 12:24, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

At the COIN board you will see that Ronz posted a list of prior conversations about the Jain article - there is a long history of paid and conflicted editors coming and trying to turn it into an advertisement for him. Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia is a significant problem that harms the integrity of WP (we even have an article on it - please read it). Your edits are very similar to those of other people who have come to WP to promote him. Jytdog (talk) 22:50, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog, I don't agree with the claims. Please see my answers there: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard.Thank you, Lidiia Kondratieva (talk) 20:51, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I know you don't agree. This is my last response here -- please listen.

You are new editor, and your understanding of BLP and NPOV is not correct and your grasp of what high quality sources are, is also weak. It is unwise for you to dig in your heels this way against two more experienced editors, especially on a topic where we have a clear, documented history of undisclosed conflicted editing in the past.

If you continuing hammering at this, you are very, very likely to get topic banned, blocked, or both.

You would do better to let this go, and work on less contentious things, and improve your understanding of Wikipedia and how it works before returning to this topic. But you will do as you will. Of course. Jytdog (talk) 21:19, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog, thank you for your advices about my further activity. I will try to be better. Lidiia Kondratieva (talk) 20:38, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Your contributed article, InfoSpace growth and downfall

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, InfoSpace growth and downfall. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Blucora. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Blucora. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Theroadislong (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Theroadislong! :) Thank you for your message and your pleasant words! I understand why it was wrong. Next time I will redirect info to an article's section or create a necessary section as most editors do. Thank you again, you are very helpful! Lidiia Kondratieva (talk) 21:05, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Repair the World

The article Repair the World has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Sourcing doesn't suggest this meets WP:ORGDEPTH

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 7

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Courtesy notice - discretionary sanctions

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Ronz (talk) 14:31, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Ronz! As I see nothing changes in our story. Could you please point out the Committee desicion, because I can't find it there myself. Would be really interesting to read it. Lidiia Kondratieva (talk) 19:21, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

read the notice. carefully. It says in plain English The Committee's decision is here. What you wrote above is entirely fake and is the last straw for me. I am drafting a motion to have you indefinitely blocked from WP. Jytdog (talk) 19:42, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 00:30, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Lidiia Kondratieva. 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)