Dgljr5121973

Welcome!

Hello, Dgljr5121973, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Question: How would I go about creating a footnote (not a citation, but a generic footnote)? Dgljr5121973 (talk) 18:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Bach cantatas

Thank you, for dealing with the Bach cantatas in great detail. Please: before changing more, have a look at the discussions related to the topic in Classical music, resulting in a form as shown in BWV 144, for example. Please note: no text, no translation, no detailed instrumentation for each single movement. All these facts are easily found in the external links. BWV 1 and the ones following were not yet adjusted, - if you want to do that, great! - Please consider to move the table above to a user page, to leave this page for discussion, suggestion: User:Dgljr5121973/Bach. Happy editing, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, BWV 1 was already outlined with scoring for each movement. Dgljr5121973 (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

You are right, BWV 1 is outlined with scoring for each movement, but that is not "already", but "still", not changed after the project decided against it. We can't handle all cantatas at the same time, I personally follow the Liturgical year, which means BWV 126 for 27 February just started. Please consider these latest cantatas as examples. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I performed the move suggested above, because another user already said that the talk page was not editable because of its size. For Bach (and so far also Pachelbel, but you may want to separate) please use the link above. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

If you have questions about editing, please feel free to ask here, I'm going to watch your page. For pages you want to watch just click the little star on top of a page "on". I guess you found the two lists of Bach cantatas at the bottom of the template which concluded each related article? What do you think of improving BWV 1 together until March 25? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure. In fact, I am already considering doing some major work on some others as well (i.e., BWV 4 and 6, BWV 244, 245, 246, and 247, etc.), as well as creating some pages of my own (i.e., BC D 1, BC D 10, BCD 5, BC D 5a and 5b, etc.). How would one go about creating a page, and linking it to another one (such as creating a page for BC D 10 and linking it to the list of Bach works, as well as pages on Altnickol's, Kuhnau's, Heinrich Graun's, and Telemann's works)? Dgljr5121973 (talk) 19:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's see if I understand. For formality: it's common practise on talk pages to use indents for each new comment. The best way to start an article of your own is to do it in your sandbox User:Dgljr5121973/Sandbox. Try it out, I mean, click on it and fill it, it's playground where you are free to experiment. - You can establish links by clicking on the chain symbol. When it comes to naming a new page as an article there are rules pointed out in the Welcome message. I confess to not have the slightest idea what "BC D 1" means. If you want to link to let's say the compositions of Bach, copy List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach, if you want to call it shorter you can use a pipe link such as Bach's works. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

OK. Will do. BTW, "BC" refers to the number of a work in the Bach-Compendium, a series of books by the noted Bach scholars Christoph Wolff and Hans-Joachim Schulze that act as a thematic catalogue of Bach's works as well as a critical report on said works, with the works organized (pretty much) chronologically. BC "D" refers to Bach's Oratorio works (including Passions). BC D 1 is specifically his so-called Weimarer Passion. Dgljr5121973 (talk) 05:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

OK. Have finished an article in my Sandbox and am ready to get it linked onto the appropriate pages and categories. How do I do this? And how do I get the name for the article the way I want it and not "User:Dgljr5121973/Sandbox"? Dgljr5121973 (talk) 11:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I was busy in real life ... I think let's work on the article in your sandbox together and then copy and paste the article, perhaps first to User:Dgljr5121973/St Mark Passion pastiche, later move from there. It's an excellent start. - The article lacks a first line in the "lead" (lede) saying what it is about. Please compare for instance St Mark Passion. The section of the movements might be changed to look similar to St Matthew Passion#Movements. Titles get italic. I will go over the links now. - Different suggestion: you may want to split your Bach user page into sections by inserting headings with "==", to make editing easier, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Project Classical music

One more thought: you may be interested to watch the project Classical music and participate in the discussions. You find the past discussions, for example about the Bach cantatas, in their archives, just use the Search function there. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Db musms1147101 ante001r.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Db musms1147101 ante001r.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 19:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there Dgljr5121973, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Dgljr5121973/Sandbox. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

• See a log of files removed today here.

• Shut off the bot here.

• Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

St Mark Passion pastiche

Great start! Please change Violin to violin, as long as the general term is meant, not a title or a specific violin, same for other instruments, vocal score, chorale, ... You may have noticed that (after a debate) the names of the Bach Passions have no dot, "St" instead of "St.". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Could you please provide a lead for an uninitiated reader, as for Weimarer Passion? The above about (no) capitalization still applies, also for "movement" and such terms which are no titles. The phrasing "has come down to us" provokes the question who that "us" is, please be inventive to say that in a less personal way. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Sandbox

What's growing in your sandbox is no toy, but on a grand scale! I offer two general suggestions: get a subset ready of what you have in mind and copy that to a user page for a more general discussion of experienced editors, plus avoid "bold" as a means of highlighting. (I did the same thing in my first article.) Almost the only wanted "bold" is the name of the article (and alternatives of that name and redirects to the page, if applicable). You probably know that there is a Manual of style (which I never used, just copied examples). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I have taken the section on Thomaskantors and put it on my User Page. Dgljr5121973 (talk) 20:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I took it to User:Dgljr5121973/Thomaskantor, hope you don't mind, this user talk page should be left for discussions. Please reduce boldness for the cantors also. In a table you may link every time. - What do you think of installing the details to the individual articles of the cantors, rather than in this list? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Please remember not to store information such as Pachelbel on this talk page. You can always create user pages by adding "/pagename" to you user, let's say User:Dgljr5121973/Pachelbel. This page should be for communication only. - I improved BWV 1 for Annunciation (yesterday), as discussed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The Pachelbel list is done and ready to be put on its own page and linked to the Pachelbel page. Dgljr5121973 (talk) 19:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Visitation

As I am not sure if you watch the pages you edit (to do so just click on the star right of "history"): I formatted your edit in Visitation, not bold (s.a.), use the standard template for Bible quote, reduce the Latin variant (it's in the link to Magnificat). The parenthesis about Elisabeth is very complicated and could be replaced by a summary and another Bible quote. What do you think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Yet (at least in my opinion) all headings of importance (such as feast days, Canticle titles, etc.) should be bolded. These items should receive a higher emphasis than just plain font. As to your edit of the Latin, it is not Magnificat, but rather Magnificat anima mea that is the true and full title of the Canticle. People just ignore the rest of it and focus on the first word. The same to some degree goes for Papal bulls. Dgljr5121973 (talk) 16:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Please discuss that "should be" with the Manual of style, which has its own discussion, but otherwise I recommend to follow it, for a uniformity of style. The titles Magnificat and Nunc dimittis do not contain the full meaning, of course, but are known titles, imo, and the link leads to the complete text. "Magnificat anima mea" still lacks the most important word: Dominum. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Bach cantatas, liturgical function

You improved this list greatly, thank you! But please keep in mind: it is rather long already. Someone added the prescribed readings lately, which had been discussed as unwanted, and which - being without a link - serve no purpose for people who don't know the Bible by those terms. They are linked and explained in every cantata. The list was made (I guess) to give an overview of which cantata was composed for which liturgical occasion. Composed, not performed, please. It is also not the place to expand on the history of a work, - please consider to rather write a short article on BWV 200. - If you want to improve the list further - I always wanted but didn't find the time yet - there should be no links from headings, and headings should not contain brackets, for example "Pentecost (Whit Sunday)"; Whit Sunday should go to the text instead or disappear. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Additional question: so far I considered Epiphany the end of the Christmas time, looking at the Christmas Oratorio, Part VI for Epiphany? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the end of the Christmas Season is Twelfth Night (also known as Epiphany Eve--5 January). It is not a good idea to make assumptions about the Liturgical Year based on a work that is actually supposed to be a collection of six works that are performed on different days (the practice of performing BWV 248 as one entity is not in keeping with the intent of the composer or the composition). Besides which, BWV 248 skips one occasion for which Bach was responsible for the music--The Sunday after Christmas (which there wasn't one in 1734/1735). Dgljr5121973 (talk) 17:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't get it: I'm talking about Bach wanting Part VI performed on Epiphany 6 January, as cantata BWV 65. Twelfth Night is not known in Germany, to my understanding. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Twelfth Night is known in Germany as well (it is a Secular holiday, and usually the beginning of Carnival season).

Also, BWV 65 was not performed on Epiphany 1735, but rather on Epiphany 1724. Dgljr5121973 (talk) 12:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Please, in discussions, indent a new contribution for clarity. The beginning of the carnival season in Germany - not liturgically, smile - is 11 November. Forgive me that at least I don't know Twelfth Night. What would it be in German? Your last remark surprises me, because I didn't mention any year, concentrating on the feast day of performance. For the Christmas Oratorio Part VI as well as for the cantata (and other cantatas) the day of performance was 6 January, Epiphany. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Your comment about Carnival is somewhat true (in certain areas, Carnival does start in November [i.e., in Munich]), but the main celebrations generally start from Twelfth Night and end on Shrove Tuesday (this is the festival that is commonly known as Fasching). In fact, in the majority of German areas, there is no Carnival season until after Epiphany (6 January), as most areas hold their annual Christmas Fairs for the period from Christmas (or even a day or two before) until Twelfth Night (generally Advent season [AFAIK] is treated the same as Lent--No general celebrations, no meat, no large-scale religious music, etc.). As to my last remark, it was as a response to your remark: "I'm talking about Bach wanting Part VI performed on Epiphany 6 January, as cantata BWV 65.". BWV 65 was not performed on 6 January 1735, but rather on 6 January 1724. "Part VI" of the Christmas Oratorio was performed on 6 January 1735. All the cover page says for "Part VI" is "Pars 6. et ultima Oratorii Festo Epiphanias" and the title of the Cantata. In other words, each "part" is a separate Oratorio unto itself (much like BWV 11 and BWV 249). Dgljr5121973 (talk) 16:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for indenting, please add one each time. - I do understand that Bach performed the parts of the Christmas oratorio in the services of six days, no question about that. But part 6 he performed on Epiphany of 1735, do you agree? And the cantata 65 on Epiphany of 1724, right. I conclude that Epiphany is the end of Christmas for Bach, whichever year. Do we agree? - Open question: what is Twelfth Night in German? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Weimarer Passion

Only now did I notice the article, good! Please supply a "lead" (lede), a summary of what the article is about, compare St Matthew Passion. Please link only once to the same topic, unless it's a very long article or it's in a table where every line should stand by itself. A matter of uniform Wikipedia style: please reduce "bold" to the article name, as mentioned above? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

BWV 173a

Please let me know (here), why your competent list Bach has the date of the first performance of BWV 173a as 1722, whereas Dürr puts it between 1717 and 1722, and bach cantatas say 1717, 1720-1722? Other input also welcome, of course, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

According to Jochen Grob's site Bachdiskographie der Werke Johann Sebastian Bach &t der Bach Familie (link: http://www.s-line.de/homepages/bachdiskographie/vok_wel/vok_welt_frame.html), the work probably was first performed on 10 December 1722. No mention of earlier performances or dates are found on the site. Even the text dating is "wohl vor 22. Dezember 1722(EA?)" (which translates to "well before 22 December 1722 (First performance?)"). The first Cantata that Bach composed for his employer's birthday was "Der Himmel dacht auf Anhalts Ruhm und Glück, BWV 66a" of 10 December 1718. Besides which, remember that Bach had just been released from imprisonment in Weimar on 2 December, so he and his family were still moving themselves and their belongings on 10 December 1717. Dgljr5121973 (talk) 17:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Should the article be changed to give more likeliness to the 1722 date? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. Dgljr5121973 (talk) 18:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Protestant Reformation, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Enlightenment and Ban (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) 10:53, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Hymnals

Thank you for your effort for Eyn geystlich Gesangk Buchleyn, but it was the first hymnal for choir. The Achtliederbuch and Enchiridion had only melodies. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, all the hymnals were for Choir, whether they had melodies or not. BTW, the hymnals were not only intended for Choirs, but also for the congregation, as Luther himself was the first advocate for congregational singing.

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) 14:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (April 15)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dodger67 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 User:Dgljr5121973/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:10, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello! Dgljr5121973, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that 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! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:10, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

St John Passion structure

I am afraid that I find four complete tables simply overwhelming. Can you find a solution that lists only the differences? If not, I will suggest to split the article in four. - Major changes to a Good article should first be discussed on the talk page. - Please check where you dropped references, I noticed several cases, . - I don't have the time to check individually, - the loss of referencing is a good reason to revert. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:23, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

ps: The many reference errors can help you finding where you lost references. Good luck fixing, will check tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

ps: its not Flute and Violin, but flute and violin, no link, no capitals, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:36, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

ps: Do you know how to read edit summaries? I explained that it is enough to say once that the Evangelist is a tenor and the voice of Jesus bass. Please take care of the referencing issue, urgently so. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:45, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, what are the requirements of a "Good Article"? In my opinion, the original one (the one that I replaced) was not such a one. The St. John Passion has five different structures (one for each version). As to the references, I do not know which ones the original used. Dgljr5121973 (talk) 00:01, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, I wanted to link to the particular articles for Flute and Violin (and yes, one should capitalize them). Dgljr5121973 (talk) 00:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I try to be patient. A Good article has been checked by an independent reviewer for certain criteria. No referencing errors is one them. Your changes introduced them, so you fix them, or I will revert. If you don't know WP:GA you possibly also don't know WP:BRD, short for "bold - revert - discuss": in short, when a bold edit is reverted, it should be discussed first. I reverted, you should not have added again but gone to the talk page. It's a general good procedure, not only for Good articles. (For those you should have discussed BEFORE adding the first time.)

You say "I wanted", and that's what I feel: it should be as you want it. How about collaboration? Example, you want Flute. Where does it go? To the flute family, not helpful. Also, it was linked before, more precisely, to flauto traverso, - we link only once. Generic terms, such as flute, are not capitalized, - Concerto for Flutem, in a name would be different.

You have two options: you familiarize yourself with basic editing and fix those things, or I will revert again. I still believe that four complete tables are too much for one article, but that is a different topic, for the article talk page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I still see the referencing errors. Please restore the references which got lost with your edits, first. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:30, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Dgljr5121973. 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, Dgljr5121973. 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)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Dgljr5121973. 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)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Dgljr5121973. 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)

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) 00:14, 19 November 2019 (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) 02:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

References

So you did some original research, and did not provide a reference? No, under such circumstances nothing should be reinstated. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:33, 24 January 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) 00:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)