User talk:Geremia

While I appreciate your concern about the trichotomy; it was there for the explicit purpose of delineating between scientific and political sources. It also showed the sources were balanced in number, and hence discouraged link spamming of further links. Now without headers they all look the same and people will be more inclined to add more links. I don't want either to happen. - RoyBoy 13:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On multiple articles, you have been re-inserting disputed edits without prior talk page consensus. This is a form of disruptive editing called edit warring. On wikipedia, editors work together as a community, and build consensus for controversial changes through discussion and compromise. Have you had a chance to read WP:BRD? Bold edits are encouraged. However, if an editor in good faith reverts your bold edit, it is never appropriate to re-instate the controversial edit. Instead, the editor pushing for the change should go to the talk page, start a new discussion making the proposal for the changes, and discussing in detail why you feel the edit is necessary and within wikipedia guidelines. Instead of starting a discussion and trying to build consensus for your changes, you reverted back to them without discussion and in spite of multiple other editor's concerns. I ask you now, to in the future please try to avoid edit warring and needlessly reverting other editors, but instead use article talk pages to discuss your proposals whenever you meet opposition to a bold edit of yours. If you have any questions about any of this, or questions about how wikipedia works in general, feel free to ask. If you want to discuss the article content further, please use those article's talk pages (there is a tab at the top of each article that says "discussion"). Hope this helps.-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Joe venuti.ogg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. David Mestel^(Talk) 16:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're adding advice questions to article discussion pages. Those pages are for discussion about the article, not for you to tap Wikipedian's pool of knowledge to satisfy your curiosity. Please stop. Additionally, you have been spamming the same question in several places; a tactic that is unnecessary even when the question is on task. About your Venuti questions: buy this album. You'll have the answer fairly quickly. Binksternet (talk) 17:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops! Copy and paste accident. The link I intended is this one. Binksternet (talk) 06:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Birthday quartet intro.ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? BJ^Talk 08:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Birthday quartet theme.ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? BJ^Talk 08:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Geremia, Since I took the trouble to identify the Mozart on the sound clips you posted at Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, would you kindly tell me where they are from? Thanks, Opus33 (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Opus33 (talk) 05:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions, including your edits to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. However, please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not be libelous. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article, or any other Wikipedia page, must include proper sources. Thank you. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 04:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, you made the movie. But the visuals WITHIN that movie were made by Imaginova Corp and are copyrighted. Their copyright supersedes your "derivative" copyright. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say that's vandalism? It looks like good-faith edits to me. — Gwalla | Talk 19:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I am currently working on the Compulsory Public Education article and I noticed that you have made some contributions to the article on Oregon's Compulsory Education Act. I am working on the Compulsory Public Education article in conjunction with a course at Syracuse University that has partnered with WikiPorject: U.S. Public Policy. Any feedback or suggestions you have on the current state of the article would be appreciated. Thanks! Clairestum (talk) 02:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Geremia, I saw your contributions on the article Religion and abortion and I was very impressed. Keep up the good work. - Haymaker (talk) 09:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! It's great that you're trying to help out at Religion and abortion, but Esoglou and I have actually been in the process of working out the wording and we seem to be nearing a summary of the main article that is both brief and accurate. Any fundamental rewrites should probably be brought to the talk page first.

As I also noted in my edit summary, the statements for which you added {{Citation needed}} tags are more than adequately substantiated by the citations in the main article. The MOS for summaries requires that material that is "challenged or likely to be challenged" be attributed, and since you're the one challenging it, I suggest that you bring over the citations from the main article. (I didn't think it was "likely to be challenged" - I honestly thought everyone knew this.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, on second thought, I'm constitutionally incapable of letting anyone else do things, so I've done it myself. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While the topic is still a bit fresh, is there anything else I can help you out with, in the way of information about how stuff works? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? Thanks—Geremia (talk) 00:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it seemed like you were unsure of the criteria for RS when we were talking about Clowes's Facts of Life (you mentioned that it was a printed book and available on Amazon/WorldCat, so I was explaining why that doesn't work). I just wanted to offer my services if there was anything else you were confused about.

Oh, and incidentally, you seem to have done a bit of work on Ensoulment, obviously - do you just focus on the Catholic stuff? Because at some point I'd like to write the section for Judaism, and I do have a few resources already, but if you could point me in the right direction for more (if your interest is more general/not just on the Catholic doctrine), that would be great as well. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but what is RS? Also, I thought there used to be a Judaism section, but now it's not there? Thanks—Geremia (talk) 02:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RS = WP:RS, or Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sources. There was a Judaism section; however, it had links but no content, so I hid it from view. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would seem to invalidate, e.g., source #25 since it is a self-published blog.—Geremia (talk) 03:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're exactly right! I'm just too lazy to change the citation to refer to the (apparently) reliable source that the blog post quotes, the Irish Theological Quarterly, rather than the blog post itself. ;) I should probably do that. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can only do that if you actually read Irish Theological Quarterly yourself. You have to WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, not "say where someone else (allegedly) got it". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are adding links to the websites of two organizations to several articles, you might like to read the advice on WP:External links and WP:REFSPAM. External links are not permitted in the body of the article (e.g., "This is an organization that promotes..."). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a heads up you appear to be at or near three reverts on the breast cancer article. You must discussion on the talk page.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Geremia. Are you going to flesh out your addition to the Summa article with a reference? Is that idea from the Dimsdale book? I couldn't quite find it there. Thanks. --Kenatipo ^speak! 16:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't do anything -- I found a ref in the Fordham College monthly. Thanks. --Kenatipo ^speak! 16:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. Unfortunately we only have a snippet view, so I can't determine the author of the article or the exact month -- but it has to be either November or December 'cause I saw a letter in there dated October 25. I'll keep looking. --Kenatipo ^speak! 18:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As it turns out, the bound volumes cover a school year. Still don't know the author yet. --Kenatipo ^speak! 20:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What on Earth is this? Your statement is 100% incorrect, per both those articles, which I assume you have read. Abortion-breast cancer hypothesis: "The abortion–breast cancer hypothesis has been the subject of extensive scientific inquiry, and the scientific community has concluded that abortion does not cause breast cancer." Abortion and mental health: ""Post-abortion syndrome" has not found widespread acceptance outside the pro-life community; the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association do not recognize PAS as an actual diagnosis or condition, and it is not included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders DSM-IV-TR or in the ICD-10 list of psychiatric conditions." Deliberately adding misinformation like that is unacceptable and may be grounds for sanction by an administrator. Please don't do anything like that again. If you don't feel that you can edit neutrally in the topic area, you shouldn't be editing it at all. NW (Talk) 05:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the discussions on either Talk:Abortion or Talk:Abortion and mental health before adding the new Coleman study? Could you please revert yourself and contribute to one of those discussions please? Thank you. NW (Talk) 05:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a general FYI, abortion-related articles are under a range of community-imposed restrictions, including 1RR (no more than one revert per 24 hours). The details can be found here. If you were already aware of these restrictions, feel free to ignore or remove this message. MastCell ^Talk 05:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I came over to say the same thing. You've been riding roughshod over this rule, so I hope it's just that you weren't aware of it. Now that you are, please follow the rules that everyone else has to follow. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:General sanctions/Abortion/Log, you have been blocked for 24 hours for your violation of the 1RR at Abortion and mental health. Users may not revert more than one time in a 24-hour period at abortion-related articles. You were warned of this above. You may request unblocking by placing {{unblock|Your reason here}} on your talk page. either way (talk) 19:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Geremia (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

As I've said numerous times, Abortion and mental health violates WP:POV in its failure even to give any weight to the minority view that abortion does cause mental health problems. Neglecting reviews that show a connection, it currently says, with a reference to one study that concludes there is not a connection: "Systematic reviews of the scientific literature have concluded that that there are no difference in the long-term mental health of women who obtain induced abortions as compared to women in appropriate control groups." There are numerous unresolved WP:POV discussions on its talk page. User:NuclearWarfare and User:ArtifexMayhem have reverted my edits to include {{Cleanup}} tags to fix these WP:POV violations despite the fact that discussions have not been resolved on the talk page. It is not a resolved issue; hence, the {{Cleanup}} tags must remain.

Decline reason:

Regardless of whether you feel your edits are correct, you remain bound by the one revert per day restriction – and you have violated it. In addition, I am resetting your block and increasing it to three days because you have attempted to evade it by editing while logged out. — Coren ^(talk) 22:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You either stop trying to evade your block to edit disruptively, or you will find yourself blocked indefinitely. — Coren ^(talk) 13:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:AN3#User:Geremia reported by User:Roscelese (Result: ). It seems you have again broken the 1RR restriction at Abortion and mental health. You can respond to the AN3 complaint if you wish. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for Violation of the General Sanctions on abortion articles. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:Geremia reported by User:Roscelese (Result: 1 week). This block is also being entered in Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Abortion/Log. EdJohnston (talk) 16:16, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Geremia (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Abortion and mental health needs some admin intervention since the pro-life viewpoint on this issue is given no scientific weight except in the pseudo-scientific, political discussions of Post Abortion Syndrome. There are unresolved discussions on the talk page regarding the article's potential violation of WP:NPOV since it still cites absolutely no scientific paper supporting a correlation between abortion and mental health, as though those papers are pseudoscience. Whenever users like User:Anupam or myself make constructive edits or reversions that would help this article conform to WP:NPOV by giving the "pro-correlation" viewpoint some representation, User:NuclearWarfare, User:Roscelese, User:MastCell, et al. promptly revert them, saying to discuss it on the talk page, yet they refuse to contribute to some discussions on WP:NPOV; meanwhile, the article makes no progress. Their views seem to be that just because most major scientific bodies do not recognize a correlation, then only articles supporting a pro-choice viewpoint should be included. Since this article also mentions the political aspects of this issue, why cannot the scientific papers and organizations supporting the pro-life viewpoint be included, too? Also, User:Roscelese has been reported stalking my edits before, so it seems she and others are trying to prevent me from making contributions to certain articles, in violation of WP:HOUND. Lastly, if you reject this request to unblock my account, is there no way you could keep abortion-related or 1RR articles blocked and unblock everything else? I just found out about this violation today while trying to edit the Pierre Duhem article, which has nothing to do with abortion nor 1RR. Thanks Geremia (talk) 19:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were warned about 1RR and repeatedly ignored it. You're lucky you're not topic banned at this point. Toddst1 (talk) 21:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I'm not sure what happened here, but please watch out to make sure that you don't accidentally do something like that again. I reverted your edit, since it removed so many other comments and quite a few threads at the bottom of the page, and restored your comment to the appropriate thread. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:59, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Sorry about that Geremia (talk) 00:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After what you've been through--put some brandy in it! – Lionel (talk) 05:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Creator ineffabilis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vatican (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've make it point to Vatican_Publishing_House now.Geremia (talk) 18:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A topic ban means that you are not allowed to edit in that topic area. Further violations of your topic ban will see you brought to WP:AE. Have a nice day. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any further violations of your topic ban will result in a block. Why unnecessarily do this to yourself? NW (Talk) 05:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dominican (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you're topic-banned from all pages related to abortion, I've reported your edit to Talk:Abortion and mental health at the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard. MastCell ^Talk 22:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm topic-banned, then why can I still edit it?Geremia (talk) 23:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The ban is not enforced by Wikipedia software, it is up to you to observe it by avoiding the listed articles. If you are not willing to pay attention to the problem, sanctions may be imposed. EdJohnston (talk) 00:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I came in to say the same thing. You are long past the point of being let off with a warning. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

Hi. I notice you have called Conservapedia "the less biased equivalent of Wikipedia". I have no interest in arguing with you. My interest is in understanding why you think Conservapedia is less biased. Could you explain it to me? Viriditas (talk) 12:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that it is because they are less monopolized by administrators' views; it's more "free market." Check out their page on examples of bias in Wikipedia, Differences between Wikipedia and Conservapedia, and Conservapedia's copyright policy, which is much less restrictive than Wikipedia's. Geremia (talk) 19:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. There is a strange dynamic at work on Wikipedia in regards to editors and sysops; it is based on an older paradigm of a centralized IT model which has become outdated. Most people, as you probably already know, are resistant to change, and have difficulty imagining and predicting the future. As for the linked explanations of bias, see our article on tu quoque. The solution to the left-right paradigm is not to give in to one side or another, but to move to the center and recognize the strengths and weaknesses of both sides. Unfortunately, there are elements in the world which will continue to try to move people from one side to the other in order to assert control over individuals. From where I stand, Wikipedia gives readers more of a choice in having access to multiple competing views. Viriditas (talk) 11:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit you wrote a Julian calendar date as 1546-04-08. Wikipedia's WP:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers calls for editors to avoid dates in that format that would violate ISO 8601 (even though Wikipedia hasn't formally adopted that standard). So there are two problems with 1546-04-08; it is before the adoption of the Gregorian calendar, and it is a Julian calendar date.

I am curious about how many editors had ever noticed the restriction in "Manual of Style/Dates and numbers", and how many editors had ever heard of ISO 8601. I'd appreciate your reaction. Jc3s5h (talk) 03:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware it was a Julian date. By "Julian date" do you just mean a date prior to the institution of the Gregorian calendar? thanks Geremia (talk) 17:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, the document itself (assuming it was accurately transcribed) gives the date celebrata die VIII. Aprilis, 1546. That was before the first adoption of the Gregorian calendar in 1582. So it must be a Julian calendar date. I understand it is rare for historians to extrapolate the Gregorian calender to dates before it was adopted (see Proleptic Gregorian calendar). However, ISO 8601 calls for dates in that format to always use the Gregorian calendar, even if the area under discussion, such as early 16th century Britain, used the Julian calendar. Wikipedia editors don't seem to do very well at following that prescription; indeed, they don't seem to do very well at specifying which calendar was used in articles where it isn't obvious. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interesting diagram (representing Western Christianity only, of course), but it doesn't display well at thumbnail size (one reason is that the TeX "Computer Modern" font is notoriously anemic), and it would appear to contain a significant element of the dreaded "original research". Also, if Trinities.org is not acceptable as a source, then Christianity.Stackexchange.Com is definitely not acceptable (especially since you appear to have written some of the material at the given URL). In any case, wonder why you didn't include a version with downwards triangle, which would have made the diagram more horizontally symmetric? The upshot is that I really don't think the image is useful to the article "Shield of the Trinity" in the way that you added it... AnonMoos (talk) 17:08, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Geremia. 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)[reply]

At https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The_Tetrast#New_draft_underway:_Classification_ofthe_sciences_.28Peirce.29 The Tetrast (talk) 01:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Hello, Geremia. 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]

Hello, Geremia. 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) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]