NorsemanII

Welcome!

Hello, NorsemanII, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  D. J. Bracey (talk) 22:55, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome :)

Happy editing! VoiceOfReason 22:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

Sorry, but I've just tagged said redirect to be speedily deleted. There was a discussion at Redirects for deletion a while ago about this article, and the consensus was to delete it. If an article is reposted after consensus has supported its deletion, it can be deleted very quickly by CSD G4. In general, cross-namespace redirects (from the mainspace to the Wikipedia space) are considered a bad idea (see Wikipedia:Avoid self-references). Anyway, I hope this doesn't discourage you - we want you to stick around! Happy editing, --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 23:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Not vandalism

NorsemanII that was not vandalism, those were real people affiliated with the Genovese crime family. -—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.22.10.68 (talk • contribs) 20:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC).

This was on my user page, I moved it here and added your signature. Regarding your edit, which can be located here [1], you added 12 links to uncyclopedia in an article that had nothing to do with it. How do you innocently add links to uncyclopedia in an encyclopedic entry that has nothing to do with uncyclopedia? -NorsemanII 06:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Battlefield 2142

I removed the tweaking guide link - it adds nothing to an encyclopedia article (which is the purpose of any of the links). Moreover it's is OR and thus should not be linked as per WP:EL. --Charlesknight 12:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Deletion guy is out of control!

You added sorely needed intelligence to the deletion battle. I hate the rationale of deleting lists because a category exists. This is even worse, he is deleting it because a category "could" exist. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your imput, Norse! --Hemlock Martinis 06:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I nominated the lists because I do not think they are the best choice for Wikipedia. My Wikiproject (Militaryhistory) is working on new better lists. If you do not agree with my decisions, feel free to object on the AfD discussions. Wikipedia is a consensus democracy. --Ineffable3000 01:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Endospore staining

Hi, I suggest that the article you created, Endospore staining be added to Microbiology as it would be a great addition to the article, but does not need a new page of its own. DreamFieldArts 2:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's appropriate to add endospore staining directly to the microbiology page. There's a number of different stains used in microbiology, and even endospore staining can be used to describe at least two different staining methods. There are no other staining techniques mentioned on the microbiology page (like the gram stain, negative stains, flagellar stains, the acid-fast stain, etc.), so it seems weird to mention endospore staining while ignoring every other stain. It might be better to start a page for stains used in microbiology and histology and then link to that page from the microbiology page. What do you think? -NorsemanII (talk) 02:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I do see where you are coming from. Now I am not a Major in Biology just a Aerospace Engineer, but I have looked to see if other articles are out their are describing what you said. I found that the other stains you listed have their own page too. I have removed your tag, enjoy you day. DreamFieldArts 2:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Victimless crimes

Category:Victimless crimes, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

September 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Speleogenesis may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• es1405/es1405page01.cfm Exploring Earth: Animation of cave formation in limestone deposits]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Exposing/evidencing some lies that 2 Wikipedians known (and 1 even disciplined for...) POV-pushing have told to you, about me.

Hi, just to clear the record, so that you don't feel bad for reverting it to re-instate my edits (as the following 3 posts are copied to the Canada Park:Talk board but I'm not sure if you want to dip your feet into that long argument again ;-) ...but as you said that you don't follow the regional politics, the following should dispel the fact that Zero & Huldra took advantage of you lack of knowledge [whether they did so purposely or not] in accusing that my edits had "unsourced" POV...or even any POV, or that I am alone in trying to stop their small political cabal's WP:Coatracking attempts on Canada Park (such as the addition of SeanHolyland's last edits, but I'll wait to give him time to put those into a more appropriate article as he just might not have read the Canada Park Talk-page, before contacting a Senior Editor for some initial advisory opinion). Where I say "you" these are directed at Huldra and Zero...not at you:

TO HULDRA: 1. You're calling the following “unsourced,” so TRY READING THE JPOST ARTICLE before embarrassing yourself with false accusations again: “[Palestinian rep's agreed] during all stages of the Peace Process, [that Latrun] would become incorporated into Israel, until June 2013" (unsourced)“ (emph added). But as the REFERENCED SOURCE who is well-regarded for fact-checking (jpost) says: “All peace plans have always put Latrun inside Israel, the official said” and if you'd like to contest that part of it, or any other parts of what I wrote into the lede (although I'm fine with Norseman's curtailed version), then you need to GET A CONTRADICTORY SOURCE. You're only impugning your own credibility by making such False Accusations against me: Are you too illiterate to read that jpost article and/or unaware that the way WP works is that you need to GET A SOURCE for why you have removed my WP:RS-sourced info, if you think jpost's editors, despite having a reputation for fact-checking, published that erroneously somehow?! ...As I already needed to state to Zero 2 days ago (after which he replied but didn't contest the following claim): “...So I never asserted "what I think" (as you just falsely-accused) the status of the salient is, I provided a source (known for fact-checking/etc)...” I also needed to call-out to him his own admission that he doesn't know much about legalities of Latrun's annexation and needed to again tonight when he referenced Pressman, despite that Pressman actually supports me instead of Zero. :-)

2. Another false accusation: "I don´t really see this as an edit-war: it is one IP who wants to force his (her?) view on the article" but if you read this Talk page & the article's History/diff's, the majority noted that the article has become a constant source of politicisation (WP:Coatrack) and my edits largely (but not fully) addressed those complaints, as others have needed to sporadically in the past, if you look at the diff's (but after those others stopped occasional WP:Coatrack attempts, people from your little POV-pushing cabal came back again). It is a small cabal of political-activist editors versus the mainstream opinion on this Talk page that your little buddies are abusing Wikipedia.

Lastly, I don't know even know who Chief Truck is...and I could just as easily say, “Funny, Sean.Holyland showed up outta nowhere,” but I'm not going to stoop to your level of making TACIT False Accusations; indeed I wouldn't really even care if you'd contacted Sean, so long as he added content that wasn't violating both:

• WP:Coatrack policy but also
• the clear majority who've said that this Archaeology Park article should not be politicised (Coatracked) into a political bitchfest...other than perhaps 1 line with a wikified link to bring people to the Yalo or other articles). I can understand that everyone makes occasional mistakes, but that's quite the CAMPAIGN of lies. 72.183.52.92 (talk) 05:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Zero claims: “never accepted this action” and “always insisted in negotiations” FALSE: Zero not only has no source to backup this claim about the “negotiations” (including Jeremy Pressman, as I'll show in the "annexation only" section below) but also the jpost ref that's already in the article directly contradicts you, Zero ...from jpost's editorial board which is 'known for fact-checking' etc per WP:RS guidelines; you and especially Huldra really SHOULD HAVE read that jpost article fully, BEFORE editing the sentence related to it. :-) ) And here you are accusing [falsely] that MY info is “generally wrong”...based on what? Based on your UNCITED/UNREFERENCED PERSONAL OPINION [WP:OR]... in contrast to the way that I CITED the jpost article: proof that it is you spreading disinfo.

the 2nd one to Zero (FUNNY!!):

Even your own source says “The Palestinian figure included Israeli annexation of...parts of the Latrun salient,” indicating that Arafat's “figure” [amount of land to be taken] concurred with Israel keeping it. Thanks, you just shot yourself in the foot...nay, nay...in the head. ;-) When you claim Arafat's rep rejected annexation [by Israel] ("insisted in negotiations") based on this [the Pressman document], how can anyone trust you: It's not just , this part of the doc you cited even refutes you, and lends more support to what jpost and I said to start with! ...N.B.: What they did disagree on is whether the No Man's Land (search for that term in Pressman's paper) is to be counted in the percentage (IIRC, it's 3%) of the West Bank that Arafat agreed Israel may take for security purposes, that is not the same as disagreeing whether or not the NML is already (whether de-facto or de-jur) annexed. Your vague citation made it difficult to see whether Pressman supports you or not, but I guess that if I was in your position (not a leg to stand on), I'd also refrain from citing the exact page-number or exact quote. ;-) As I already observed: you were exhibiting utter cluelessness on legal agreements RE: Latrun when you wrote about it to Pluto, and now you're so blinded by your bias that you're using a source who even HIMSELF contradicted the particular point that you're trying to make. I'd be crying if I wasn't laughing right now. 72.183.52.92 (talk) 05:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 27

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Anthony Charles Graves, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mother Jones. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, NorsemanII. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, NorsemanII. 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)

Disambiguation link notification for March 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited LR, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Likelihood ratio (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) 09:12, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

First Past The Post is the same as Plurality

The reason your addition of "First Past The Post" to the election-method comparison table has been removed is that FPTP is the same as Plurality, which is already in the table. I don't know how to add this comment to the edits going on there, so I'm trying this approach. VoteFair (talk) 04:04, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, NorsemanII. 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)

List of books about anarchism moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, List of books about anarchism, 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 "Draft:" 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. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of books about anarchism (August 7)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CASSIOPEIA was:  The comment the reviewer left 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:List of books about anarchism 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:List of books about anarchism, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" 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 Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:21, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, NorsemanII! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! CASSIOPEIA(talk) 07:21, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:List of books about anarchism has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:List of books about anarchism. Thanks! CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:46, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of books about anarchism has been accepted

List of books about anarchism, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as List-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can 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 help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of books about anarchism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peter Marshall (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) 08:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of books about anarchism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nomos (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:20, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

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) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:58, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

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) 01:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

See also

Hello, waukesha Christmas...the theme of see also there was Christmas vehicle attacks. Not religion. Just dropped by to tell you. Lightburst (talk) 04:42, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@Lightburst:, duly noted, but the point stands. As of yet we know nothing about the attacker(s) or their motives, and have no way of knowing if this was a religiously-motivated attack targeted against a Christmas parade (which has precedent as you noted) vs. a racially- or politically-motivated attack (like the examples I noted as precedent), vs. a ruthless opportunist evading police by driving through a crowd (which also has precedent) vs. a guy with a brain tumor seeing hallucinations of everyone as demons (more akin to the Charles Whitman case). It still could be any of those, and each would warrant a different set of appropriate links in the 'see also' section. -NorsemanII (talk) 05:29, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you made sense, I was just explaining the motivation behind that particular list. Lightburst (talk) 13:52, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

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) 00:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Edit summaries

If you're going to make major controversial changes to fast-moving topics, please use edit summaries. This applies both to your unexplained retargeting of Russian invasion of Ukraine (only explained after I reverted you) and to this edit. Thank you. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 09:31, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@Tamzin: Both edits are obvious if you look at the before and after. For the first, 99% of people typing in "Russian invasion of Ukraine" probably expect to immediately see the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, and will not want to be forced to read through a list of times when Ukraine or parts of Ukraine were invaded or occupied by various countries, among which Russia happens to be one. Note that that list only includes one invasion of Ukraine as a whole by Russia, so the intent of the search term "Russian invasion of Ukraine" should be pretty unambiguous. On that note, I'm going to revert it again.

For the second, my edit went in within seconds of the person before me, but the edit just prior to that had wiped out the infobox, so I reverted to the most recent version which still had the infobox. -NorsemanII (talk) 10:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

It is a basic principle of editing Wikipedia that potentially controversial edits should have edit summaries. Regardless, I told you twice to take the redirect to RfD rather than revert, and somehow you thought the best next step was to revert me a second time. Please consider this a warning for edit warring. Here, I've done your job for you and filed an RfD, but if you pull a stunt like that again I will just take it to WP:ANEW and let it be resolved as a user conduct issue. This is conduct far below what I'd expect of an editor who's been here so long. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 17:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and:

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 17:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Vapor pressure, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mercury.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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) 00:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)