User talk:Emerman
- Archive 1 — Comments from December 7, 2004 – April 20, 2005
- Archive 2 — Comments from April 20 – July 12, 2005
- Archive 3 — Comments from July 13, 2005 – February 5, 2006
- Archive 4 — Comments from February 5, 2006 – July 30, 2006
- Archive 5 — Comments from July 31, 2006 - November 24, 2006
- Archive 6 — Comments from November 25, 2006 - June 25, 2011
- Archive 7 — Comments from June 26, 2011 - August 19, 2013
Please see history for recent discussions, if any.
They will be periodically archived. Emerman (talk) 03:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
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) 12:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
[edit]
Hello, Emerman. 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
[edit]Hello, Emerman. 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
[edit]Hello, Emerman. 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)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lakuna until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Boleyn (talk) 21:30, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
[edit]Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
[edit]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) 00:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Introduction to contentious topics
[edit]
You have recently edited a page related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief 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.
ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:37, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- No, I was giving feedback in a TALK PAGE associated with an ARTICLE called United States involvement in regime change - and whether it is somehow connected to or a subset of other ARTICLE pages is not something I was aware of or keeping up with. I went to a page called the above - it may be coincidentally connected to larger subjects besides the subject I was looking at. I was commenting that there are editors who are making actual edits in an ARTICLE page, unlike my SIMPLE ATTEMPT to provide an OPINION IN A TALK PAGE about what I was seeing happening with people removing edits. I had an expectation that writing suggestions and information about how it looks for people to remove information about politics should be NORMAL and standard behavior in a TALK PAGE, and for you to try to shut down my effort to even talk in a talk page is shocking, going far beyond the sort of biased editing I have been seeing in actual "Article" pages == I did NOT attempt to in any way change the "Article" page at issue; I was writing in the associated TALK PAGE where we are supposed to have open debate and discussion. Apparently there are people in the Talk pages monitoring even discussion of the ideas of what may be discussed not ONLY in an Article page (which I never even thought of editing on this topic) but ALSO censoring views expressed in a TALK PAGE! Outrageous and disappointing.
- It is also alarming that within seconds of typing my thoughts in a TALK PAGE more than one alert popped up related to what seemed to be someone wanting to shut down my commenting by writing complaints as though monitoring all thoughts even in talk pages. That is beyond the pale for my understanding for how Wikipedia is intended to work in the numerous years I have been present. I am not allowed to even express a single view apparently EVEN IN A TALK PAGE that might be something some editor doesn't agree with -- all you apparently have to do is accuse me of being "contentious" to excuse deleting my point of view? I did NOT make any edits on the "article" page, only the Talk Page, which I had every expectation of being allowed to do. How are people supposed to understand what each other thinks if we simply shut down in a TALK PAGE any view we do not like? This type of censorship is most disappointing. You are supposed to be giving ME the benefit of the doubt that I am doing my best just like you want me to do and I did not reference anyone in particular or attack any individual. I expressed my view about edits I was seeing where people seemed, according to statements in the talk page, to simply be deleting information that had been posted in the Article page regarding a 2014 matter. DO we no longer have the right to express an opinion in a TALK PAGE? Has censorship gone this far? I was never made aware of this until today. Emerman (talk) 20:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- In response to your email (since I prefer to discuss on-wiki unless absolutely necessary) the above message "does not imply that there are any issues with your editing", to quote it directly. It is simply an alert that you have edited content in a highly controversial area, and advising you to take care. None of your messages have been deleted, and you would be well advised to cease the spurious and exaggerated claims of censorship.Oh, and yes, talk pages are not and have never been places to express general opinions. See the talk page guidelines: you should only be using them to discuss the article. By the way, the caps locks aren't necessary—we can read perfectly well without them. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:05, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- I did not say I gave a "general" opinion. As I stated, I wrote what I thought of edits in the article related to the talk page, which is exactly what I thought the talk page is for. I did not state I had given "a general opinion." I stated that I had been scolded about giving feedback about edits to an article that had been discussed in the section I commented on in a Talk page, and I did not make any edits to the article, only added my view about edits made in the Article page being discussed in the Talk page.
- In response to your email (since I prefer to discuss on-wiki unless absolutely necessary) the above message "does not imply that there are any issues with your editing", to quote it directly. It is simply an alert that you have edited content in a highly controversial area, and advising you to take care. None of your messages have been deleted, and you would be well advised to cease the spurious and exaggerated claims of censorship.Oh, and yes, talk pages are not and have never been places to express general opinions. See the talk page guidelines: you should only be using them to discuss the article. By the way, the caps locks aren't necessary—we can read perfectly well without them. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:05, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- I asked you a question because I had thought you had commented on something vaguely related before, but I see I was mistaken and so you did not need to be asked anything. Since I wasn't sure I had used private message as I prefer to write in public when I am sure about something and I was not sure what you had talked about before and I don't need to know about your own past discussion now since I was mistaken to think there was any similarity. I certainly wish people would stop twisting what I am saying to mean other things.
- The purpose of the all caps was emphasis to make it easier to see. You yourself "can see perfectly well" without emphasis but it is the easiest way for me to make something bold or italic because I'm not constantly in here doing edits as much any more. For me, adding emphasis makes things easier to read. It was not intended as "shouting," like you imply.
- I'm not going in and editing the Article at issue in this case; I gave an opinion in a talk page related to edits on the related Article page based on my seeing the only mention of the info I was looking for on the Article page being in the Talk page, and that was about people who had started to give info in the Article page that does not currently exist there. I do not have time to keep coming in here for some sort of jousting or contentiousness that you or someone else want to have just because I inadvertently annoyed someone in a Talk page where I said nothing ad hominem about any individual.
- Thanks, and now I have to get other work done than coming into wikipedia several more times to reply about a talk page view I gave earlier that I have no intention of adding to or engaging in further debate over such as being scolded now over emphasis type used in a Talk page - it was a one-time comment. My personal style often uses all caps but not in actual Articles. Sorry it bothers you how I tried to make it easier to see emphasis on the word "talk" but this feels like more excessive scolding. I do feel like my participation is being chilled by the scolding I get the rare time I have ever ventured an opinion which you have made sure to state is unwanted. I did not do anything to cause a problem to the Article. Emerman (talk) 22:26, 22 August 2024 (UTC)