User talk:Roman Reigns Fanboy

Welcome!

Hi Roman Reigns Fanboy! I noticed your contributions to President of Sri Lanka and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Nythar (talk) 07:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Top Gun: Maverick

Hi. You recently removed information regarding the box office performance on Top Gun: Maverick. The information you removed was its worldwide ranking, domestic ranking, and the fact that it is the studio's highest grossing film. Due to the film's standing in the worldwide and domestic ranking, these are all notable and cannot be removed. If the film was lower in ranks it could be debated upon, but the fact that the film is in the Top 10 films domestically and has recently entered the Top 20 worldwide, means that these pieces of information must be kept. Zvig47 (talk) 17:32, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't cite any sources, and your definition of what information must be included is arbitrary. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 17:34, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for the film's standings are not needed as you can simply press the link. Furthermore the film's gross is already cited. Zvig47 (talk) 18:23, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All material must be cited, it's stated so when you edit the article. Also why do you think adding the material is necessary? Films change rankings often. Your definition of what to include is arbitrary. Seek a consensus. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 18:26, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A film changes ranking yes, but that does not mean they shouldn’t be included. When they are so high up they likely won’t change much, and are therefore notable. The fact that the film is the 9th highest grossing domestic release ever and is in the running for possibly the Top 5, means these things must be listed. Sources have since been added to the information. Zvig47 (talk) 18:42, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't decide on your own when to include and what's notable. And btw sources should be cited with actual articles, not links to another Wiki article. That's not how it works. This is an encyclopedia, not a miscellaneous list of various records. As I said please seek a consensus. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 18:45, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 2022

Hello, I'm LilianaUwU. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Minions: The Rise of Gru have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Liliana ^(UwU) 00:15, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just updating the box office. I don't see what's unconstructive in changing a few numbers. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 00:17, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the numbers you put seem to be lower than yesterday's numbers... is revising the box office numbers downwards a thing? I gotta admit, I'm not very savvy in that field. Liliana ^(UwU) 00:21, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The numbers released on Sunday are just estimates for the whole weekend, including the Sunday gross, and not accurate. This is why the numbers released on Monday can be lower or higher as they are an accurate figure. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 00:23, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, TIL. Liliana ^(UwU) 00:24, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drummie Zeb's date of death

Hi. You definitively stated Drummie Zeb's date of death as 2 September 2022. When you updated the article, you claimed it was confirmed in the obituary. Then you should provide that obituary. We have not confirmed it. What we do know from several reports is that the band Aswad released a statement on September 2 that Gay had died. The cause, date, and place of death are still unknown.

So you should not write definitive information that is not definitive.

Itagagaki (talk) 10:27, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Itagagaki It's a compromise to make others happy. That you can take it as a confirmation. I should have been more clearer for which I apologize, but the edit summary of confirmation was directed at you. I didn't think you would have believed it otherwise unless I used a source explicitly saying that date. But I always knew that he did die on that date. Not wanting an edit war however, I avoided reverting.

Just because it doesn't say X person died on that date when a death is announced, doesn't mean that they didn't die on that day. Please avoid creating such needless issues. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 10:31, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When a death is announced, it does not necessarily mean that the person did not die that day. That is true. But it also doesn't mean that the death didn't occur before that date. The fact that he died on that day is only a guess, not a definite fact.

Please do not write things that cannot be determined to be true as if they were true.

There must be no compromise.

If it's a guess, it should be written as a guess. Itagagaki (talk) 10:46, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a reason to assume it might not have happened then I see a point. But there was none here. We can't leave the date of death hanging fire because you don't like it. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 10:54, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is not up to you to determine the date of Zeb's death.

Just write the facts. That's all there is to it. Itagagaki (talk) 11:00, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The situation has already been resolved. No point in arguing over it now. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 11:02, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me butting in after the fact, but I see you are a new editor Roman Reigns Fanboy and this is important. You wrote: "We can't leave the date of death hanging fire because you don't like it." It is not because the other editor doesn't like it, it is because because more than in any other area of Wikipedia, accuracy in WP:BLP articles is crucial. This is a legal matter and the Wikimedia Foundation can be sued for getting it wrong. We can, and we indeed have to "leave the date of death hanging fire" if it cannot be definitively confirmed, with a cited source provided. If the death has been reported by a reliable source but the date of death not given, then explicitly state the date as the date of the report, not as the date of death. I encourage you to read WP:BLP and MOS:BLP, and I reiterate the welcome message. Cheers! Captainllama (talk) 00:31, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Captainllama: One can only sue if there is cause to assume they might be harmed by another party, in this case damage to credibility. A date of death can't damage any credibility in any way. Even if it's wrong, it's merely inaccurate or speculation about dates. No suit is going to happen because there is no possible injury and if someone does file it, it's frivolous at best. See this [1] [2]. While I understand that people might not assume the date of death as correct, I suggest simply using that as a reason instead of saying Wikipedia can be sued. Thank you for contacting. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 00:42, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't fudge, the issue is not whether a hypothetical lawsuit is theoretically possible, the issue is to scrupulously adhere to blp policy. Captainllama (talk) 00:51, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That said I will omit dates of deaths if they aren't explicitly mentioned from now. It was my fault. I should have waited. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 00:48, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict] thanks for understanding. Captainllama (talk) 00:52, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was you who brought up the lawsuits. I did acknowledge the part about the dates not being explicit and stated that I won't add death dates from now on if they aren't explicit. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 00:55, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The point I was making is that accuracy in WP:BLP articles is crucial because the Wikimedia Foundation can be sued for getting it wrong; it was not that anyone was likely to sue over your particular error here. I'm sorry if it wasn't clear, and I hope you will accordingly take the point to adhere scrupulously to WP:BLP at all times and not just in relation to death dates. Captainllama (talk) 09:05, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Captainllama You can't be sued for something like a death date because it can't result in any damages or injuries to a party. Of course someone can try to file one but it'll be dismissed. Let's say if someone hypothetically tries to file a suit over getting reverted, does that mean we let them do what they want? Please don't use it as a reason, someone being possibly pedantic shouldn't be used as a restrain from editing. Simply say that it's against the policy if the source isn't explicit. I already stated that I won't add the death dates from now on, please don't argue over this. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 15:19, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While I already acknowledged my original post could, possibly, be misconstrued, my penultimate post is perfectly clear. Captainllama (talk) 22:43, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And I've already stated that imagining hypothetical scenarios of someone doing absurd lawsuits that'll get tossed out in a court aren't the correct way to tell someone what not to edit. Now please drop the issue and move on. Any more replies to this page will be reverted. I've already stated I won't edit unless a source is explicit simply because it's not explicit, but I'm not going to agree with your claimed reasoning for it. You can't sue a person for just about anything. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 22:52, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel aggrieved as if I'm arguing, my intent was only to explain the reason the general policy is strict, not to suggest your particular edit could be actionable by law. Your replies seemed, to me, to be argumentatively missing the point, which is why I replied stating the point more strongly. Forgive me if I offended you, my concern is only for the integrity of the project and the assistance of new editors in maintaining it with their contributions. I apologise for being clumsy in my attempt - peace. Captainllama (talk) 23:06, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Proclamation of accession of Charles III, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Joseph Morrow. 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) 09:05, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November 2022

Hello, I'm Erik. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Black Adam (film), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:44, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment at Talk:Black Adam (film)#Figures. The number you are trying to add is not supported by The Numbers or Box Office Mojo. It is $100K too high. Do you see a different number than what is stated on the article talk page and in the sources for myself and the IP editor? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:45, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reunters

Hello Roman! I had to restore this citation because the BBC one don't mention that Lula's Car Wash charges were annulled (that's why I didn't mentioned when I wrote it, since I didn't wanted to put anything that the citations didn't support). Erick Soares3 (talk) 16:16, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Erick Soares3 It's CNN not BBC. The background itself mentions that the charges were annulled. Regardless you could try to find a more recent source. I would be removing Reuters and replacing it with a more recent source. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 04:44, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Audience response

I agree with your edit,[3] there is probably enough to justify making an exception and including the audience response in the article for Black Adam. The version you added was a good start. I think we should make sure to establish a firm local consensus for it and make sure that strict editors are sufficiently happy with the WP:SECONDARY sources and the wording.

Please comment on talk page Talk:Black_Adam_(film)#Audience_response_again. -- 109.79.74.129 (talk) 12:34, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November 2022

Hello! My "reverting for removing truth" is only this (Bolsonaro is the lame duck, and the past editor attempted to remove it - but I conceed that I was more harsh here), nothing more. I have absolutly nothing to do with the "triggers" topic and I have only attempted to save them by making it less POV, since the text claimed that the Voting Machine were prone to fraud (going against the evidence) and that the "Brazilian people wanted printed vote" (but without source). I had no desire to write about the causes. Erick Soares3 (talk) 12:04, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, seems like I misread. I've apologised on your page and removed my warnings. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 12:07, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of Baha'u'llah

The photo is not being censored. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:15, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cuñado Please explain to me why you demoted it then. The only reason for its demotion on talk page I see is religious sentiments. The photo is definitely real. So it's clear censorship. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 16:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please...

...use the "show preview" button rather than perform so many edits to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. It's difficult for anyone else to avoid edit conflicts with you. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:48, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Bridger I've tried but I do still miss things. No I'm not joking, I do have some difficulty in reading and understanding things which is why I can misinterpret long paragraphs unless I focus and read multiple times. It's also why I misinterpreted the vote count of a section. I apologise, I'll try to do better. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 21:53, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also being forgetful doesn't help me either. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 21:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I must also ask that you use the WP:PREVIEW function. You are needlessly blowing up talk page histories and the watchpages of hundreds, if not thousands, or editors by making a dozen consecutive edits for every contribution. Please. Use. Preview. Thank you. - wolf 13:53, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AI editing

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

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

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Selfstudier (talk) 13:47, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Top Gun: Maverick

Hi, as you can see here, the movie is still in theaters in Australia--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 19:10, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DC Extended Universe

You have repeatedly moved data and sections from the DCEU article, to some article draft that is for a DC Universe article. This should not be removed without a consensus. Furthermore, Gunn and Safran clearly state: "we have Shazam[!: Fury of the Gods], which leads into [The] Flash, which resets everything, which then goes into Blue Beetle, which is totally disconnected (from everything that came before) and can be a part of the DCU, which goes into Aquaman [and the Lost Kingdom], which leads into Superman: Legacy, our first big project..." What this brings into question is the continuity of this all, and whether or not the franchise will be rebooted into a new one or rather "RESET" as they stated. A similar move was done in the X-Men films when X-Men: Days of Future Past was released. Until we have more details, we cannot assume what their meaning is. Please stop removing information from this article.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:56, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DisneyMetalHead That DCU article is not a draft. The quotation you cite to me clearly states that Flash resets everything and Blue Beetle can be a part of DCU since it's disconnected from DCEU films. They did not state Blue Beetle was definitely a part of DCU, only that it can be. And also separating DCU and saying it can be clearly means it's a new franchise. I'm sorry but those projects will not be reinserted and I request you to not reinsert. Gunn clearly called his films the first chapter. There's no sense in continuing the DCEU article. DCEU is dead. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 05:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Roman Reigns Fanboy: you need to ping me correctly, if you are going to ping me. You cannot assume what the co-CEO is saying and you will find this with a proper discussion on the talk page. I would venture that you will see this to be the case, not just with me. I have attached yet another reference where James Gunn on camera calls each project a part of the DCU. You do not get to executively make decisions on an article. This is poor WP behavior and I suggest that you stop now. Take to the talk page before you make these rash/controversial decisions.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 05:06, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DisneyMetalhead It's just a capitalisation mistake DisneyMetalhead. I already realised it. Your behaviour seems hostile. Also this discussion seems to be better suited at the article talk page. Please don't message here instead. I never said I only get to make decisions, you can seek consensus about keeping the projects. That's how Wikipedia works. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 05:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Roman Reigns Fanboy: there is zero hostility here. Assume WP:GOODFAITH, and it will save you some frustrations. I simply came to your talk page because of your controversial deletions of data on the article. I have already taken to the talk page, as you will have seen (I'm sure). I know how WP works, which is why I've advised you to take to the talk page at the stated article. Cheers m8.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 05:29, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DisneyMetalhead You criticised me for not using professional language just a short while ago, all because I said "dead universe". You accused me of trying to impose my edits and take ownershio. That wasn't mean as insulting so I don't see your point. Politeness is Wikipedia's rule, there's nothing wrong with colloquial speech. You're poking me pointlessly over a mistake which I'll notice anyway. You are not assuming WP:GOODFAITH yourself. ~~And besides it was me who recommended getting a consensus.~~ Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 05:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Roman Reigns Fanboy: I originally stated: "This should not be removed without a consensus." My next statement/comment was "Take to the talk page before you make these rash/controversial decisions". There is zero intended hostility and merely an attempt to get your attention and notify you that this is a topic needing further discussion. I have taken to the talk page as I indicated before. The discussion can continue there. I mean you no malice.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 05:48, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DisneyMetalhead My mistake, I didn't read your comment clearly since I rush sometimes and there was back and forth. Yes you did say, but I also suggested consensus. But you're pointlessly accusing me of trying to impose my vision, you're pointlessly bringing up professional language when no offense was meant, and poking over some simple mistakes which is not needed. I'm sorry if you do not mean hostility and I do accept I got heated. But please avoid doing that in future, discussions will be much easier. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 05:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no beef with you. I would suggest slowing down, reading everything an editor has to say, and taking to a discussion on the talk-page anytime you disagree on something (in the future). I'm sure clarification on the topic will come out shortly, and then we can definitively state what is/isn't. Until then, we can only state/cite what is stated. DisneyMetalhead (talk) 06:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently been editing India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan which has been designated a contentious topic. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;

comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;

follow editorial and behavioural best practice;

comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and

refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Kautilya3 (talk) 17:58, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries.

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that one or more recent edit(s) you made did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary, and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! Springnuts (talk) 23:57, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Typo for date of box office grosses

I made a typo when it came to updating the box office grosses. I meant to type February 13, but I entered the 14th by mistake. I am aware of how to update the days for grosses with the exception of Sundays. --And1987 (talk) 03:34, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Date formats

Hi, just wanted to let you that you do not have to change the date format in refs when you the use the Template:Use dmy dates, it automatically formats it to the preferred format. Mike Allen 19:06, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thanks for letting me know. Cheers. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 19:09, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Roman_Reigns_Fanboy reported by User:Trailblazer101 (Result: ). Thank you. Trailblazer101 (talk) 08:31, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Las Adam is apparently autocorrect’s interpretation of Kasdan. And unless it was randomly removed at some point there should be an article cited in the page including Kasdan’s tweet about how the show was not cancelled and the move was more releasing actors from commitments while a season 2 was figured out. Rusted AutoParts 16:45, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, I've added a more clear source. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 16:50, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Noorullah (talk) 04:35, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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) 00:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2024!

Hello Roman Reigns Fanboy, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024.
Happy editing,
Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:16, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:16, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Trailblazer101 and same to you. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 16:20, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]