Fort Towson

Hi! I see that you're new to Wikipedia... it can be daunting, can't it? But rewarding. I also see you've done some good work thus far on articles relating to French India, which is great because I've always felt the articles on non-British India are a little lacking. But on the topic of the Commonwealth, I'd like to point you to WP:CON, WP:NOR, WP:UNDUE and, relating to your question about the term "Commonwealth realm" on the French wiki, WP:CIV. We use the term "Commonwealth realm" is because it's been used in reliable sources and provides a catchall term to refer to those 16 countries. This is a longstanding consensus here and was adopted as a matter of course on the French encyclopedia. Remember to assume good faith, as well. I hope this has been helpful, and I look forward to working with you on the project! Cheers -- MichiganCharms (talk) 01:45, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please review WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. You did a good job writing it, but it reads like original research, or even that it was copied. You need to source information. You can use your sandbox (there's a link at the top of this page called My Sandbox) to write your full edit and add citations.

Also, don't do any further reverts. You're just on the cusp of WP:3RR, and you don't want to go there. I've seen a lot of good editors get bad marks because of it. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 18:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted that section titled Enclaves and exclaves of the European Union. Some have criticized part of it in Talk, but the whose section makes no sense. If you start creating enclaves and exclaves to non-state entities, then we are entering fantasyland and there is no end in sight. By the same token, I could say that Cuba is an exclave of the Organisation of American States, that this and that country is an enclave or an exclave of the Arab League, or ASEAN, or NATO, etc.--Lubiesque (talk) 01:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Free imperial city, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Reichstag (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) 04:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Free imperial city, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Swabian (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) 11:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reminder. Actually I was in the process of going back to what I posted yesterday to ckeck, among other things, all those links.--Lubiesque (talk) 11:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Grafen. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made to British Empire, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Grafen (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

Prince-Bishopric of Freising, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-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. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.

• 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!

-- Eclipsed (talk) (COI) 14:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Lubiesque, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to Victoria Day does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{Help me}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Simplified 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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ever heard of your "assume good faith"? I did not mean to vandalize anything. It was a mistake. Just for your information, next time perhaps you'll think two times about using certain words improperly.

My regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.18.153.36 (talk) 19:52, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at British Raj shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
As I've said repeatedly, the article is about a political entity, not about a term; it doesn't matter that it has been in place for three months. I've been working on this article for 7 years; we've been through this issue many times before, see the talk archives. I know what the article is about. Thank you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:44, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your continuous removal of a section link in Ottoman Empire (diff, diff, diff and diff) has been your only "contribution" to the article so far and is starting to resemble vandalism. The article Decline of the Ottoman Empire exists, no matter how you feel about it, and is linked to the main article as laid down in WP:SS which is a Wikipedia guideline. This silly affair has been going for almost a month now, so I hope you will decide to follow the guideline and stop reverting. Regards, eh bien mon prince (talk) 23:21, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I'm interested in improving the Weihaiwei article, I am reading the "Weihaiwei under British rule" and I also have the "Lion and Dragon in Northern China."Chuangzu (talk) 12:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened a formal RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#Request for comment on the deprecation of left-aligned images under sub-headings,an issue on which you commented in previous discussion there. DrKiernan (talk) 09:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lubiesque. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Troctar (talk) 06:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I answered you on History of Baden-Württemberg, maybe we can get something good out of this. Ruddah (talk) 14:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When I saw that you had removed a map from German mediatization, with the explanation "A more detailed map of the prince-bishoprics is already shown", I was concerned. The map you removed is different from the one of prince-bishoprics in several ways. However, I checked the most conspicuous difference, and found that the removed map shows the prince-bishopric of Magdeburg, which was secularised in 1680. So you did a good job in removing an inappropriate map,

Cheers, Maproom (talk) 08:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you raised the issue of having two articles Gregorian calendar and Adoption of the Gregorian calendar. FYI please see Talk:Old Style and New Style dates#Duplicate articles -- PBS (talk) 09:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Empire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kingdom. 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) 09:02, 22 August 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) 16:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Socotra, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mocha. 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) 09:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm RA0808. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Qatar seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 14:16, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lubiesque. 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]

You removed the background section back in October. It may have been overlong, but I am not so certain it was "irrelevant, even remotely" to the affair. The differences in outlook between (a) Britain and (b) France and Russia had much to do with how the affair played out after the start of the blockade. The illiberalism of Otto also may have played a role in the Whig government's decision to escalate. I have not restored the section, since it is not something I know much about. Srnec (talk) 21:02, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You say "It must be made clear that, in English and French, we no longer use the term Levant in a contemporary context. The rest of the article should be edited to reflect that reality." This is not true. See the sources I have added to the article. --Macrakis (talk) 23:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lubiesque. 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]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Italian Eritrea, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Abyssinia (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) 09:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote "1872 to 1886" in the introduction to the article, did you mean to write 1976? Uglemat (talk) 18:49, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edits; pure curiosity. Re Especially in this case, what is stated is not at all the general view; I'm not sure I agree (and that's ok) but from your perspective, what is the general view?

Not urgent, thanks for reviewing this.

Robinvp11 (talk) 18:10, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lubiesque. 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]

Hi Lubiesque! You created a thread called Procedure to change the name of an article at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please . Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I wanted to let you know that insults and accusations are not the sign of a good Wikipedian. According to this Government of India portal: https://web.archive.org/web/20150402195506/http://ecourts.gov.in/pondicherry/history the cession treaty isn't entirely repealed and French is an additional official language of Pondicherry/Puducherry

Also, since the Government of India has changed the English, French and Tamil names, Pondichery became Poudouchery, the Gazette contains the new names since 2006, 2007, 2008... up to the 2019 revision. How on Earth can you call this a "mistake", when the Government is using it from 1960s-2006 and 2006-2019?. Calling me a "clueless fellow" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pondicherry&oldid=901127356 does not help build your case.

Here are other government sources for the new French official name:

• https://districts.ecourts.gov.in/pondicherry/history
• http://gstcouncil.gov.in/sites/default/files/sgst-notification/PUD-(R)-21.pdf
• https://gst.py.gov.in/ctd/gst/THE-PUDUCHERRY-GOODS-AND-SERVICES-TAX-(AMENDMENT)-ACT-2018.pdf
• https://labour.py.gov.in/sites/default/file/2017/The%20Puducherry%20Loading%20and%20Unloading%20(Regulation%20of%20Employment%20and%20Welfare)%20Act,%202017.pdf
• https://lad.py.gov.in/images/pdf/GO/Profession%20Tax%20for%20panchayat%20Act%20No.%204.pdf

✘ anonymousвهii 15:21, 10 June 2019 (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) 00:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Herrschaft, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Burgher (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) 07:19, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Exclusive economic zones

hi please help me create this template for articles. seperate template for eez articles. and also sort template by continent. thanks

Exclusive economic zone, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_economic_zone_of_Greece#References

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.Kangdomkome (talk) 03:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Colony of Liberia Kanto7 (talk) 09:13, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Imperial units, Metrication, History of the metric system, and Talk:Imperial units. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. What are you doing? Did you even look at the articles before you removed that map four times? The map does show Canada as a mixed usage country. And yes, I can remove your WP:NOTAFORUM talk page post. If you want to suggest a change to a page then suggest a change, don't make general comments on the subject. Meters (talk) 18:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please consult the sources. The term francafrique is used in academic journals on international relations. Therefore, that statement is correct. This is the second time I have had to revert your edit. If you wish to discuss this further, then please use the talk page. Thanks. danielkueh (talk) 16:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at francafrique shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. danielkueh (talk) 16:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Look the Aden Settlement article redirects to the Chief Commisoners Province of Aden. I changed it to 1839 S that is when Aden became British. If you could give a reason why you are undoing that edit I will be very happy to stop Kanto7 (talk) 03:53, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a separate article for the Aden Settlement. That article should only talk about Aden Province from 1932 to 1937 Kanto7 (talk) 03:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC):[reply]

Yes, surprisingly, Aden Settlement (1839-1937) does not have an article of its own. But creating a separate article dealing only with Aden Settlement would make a total of 4 articles for British Aden (Aden Settlement, Chief Commissioner's Province of Aden, Aden Colony, State of Aden) Four separate articles for a minor colony is absurd. A better solution would be to take the article Chief Commissioner's Province of Aden (a short period not deserving a separate article), rename it British Aden and write an article that covers the entire period of British rule. I'm thinking of doing that in the coming days. --Lubiesque (talk) 21:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah Kanto7 (talk) 22:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A better title for the article would be Brtish Aden within India. Kanto7 (talk) 23:21, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Aden Protectorate flew the British Flag alongside State flags. Hence the Union Flag is what should be in the Infobox. Let's just solve this edit war Kanto7 (talk) 23:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You MUST give a reliable source for that otherwise it will be removed again. It seems we are wasting our time asking you right and left to give reliable sources to your edits.--Lubiesque (talk) 01:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright fine. I couldn't find any sources. I'm sorry for the mindless edit warring on the Aden Protectorate Kanto7 (talk) 01:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to ask, why is my map that has sources... Non-acceptable? Thank you ! Gabriel Ziegler (talk) 01:09, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. M.Bitton (talk) 17:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. M.Bitton (talk) 20:43, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lubiesque, having seen the ANI and your actions, I'll say two things here. Per WP:OWNTALK, an editor is actually completely free to delete your messages and virtually anything else, from their talk page. Also, when someone asks you to stop posting on their talk page, you need to respect that per WP:USERTALKSTOP. There are very limited cases where it might be okay despite such a request but this is definitely not one of them [1]. In fact, that sort of crap isn't something you should post even if an editor never told you to stop. I suggest you cut out on that crap right, now or expect to be blocked for WP:Harassment. Nil Einne (talk) 21:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Crap" How nice! How educated! Keeping in the same sophisticated vein: who the fuck are you?--Lubiesque (talk) 01:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]