User talk:Malerisch
 | This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics:
|
|
|
Thanks!
[edit]While I'm here, I also put in a request to fix the armorial of sovereign states article - there, Namibia and Nauru are out of alphabetical order. 108.160.120.64 (talk) 12:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Nevermind. Already taken care of. 108.160.120.64 (talk) 12:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
[edit]
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) 00:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Advice: RfC
[edit]In the RfC statement you should list out the options on what should go in lead. E.g Option A "Most of the rape victims of the Pakistani Army and its allies were Hindu women." & Option B "Bengali Hindu women were especially targeted for rape by the Pakistani Army and its allies, though Bengali Muslim women were raped by Pakistani soldiers as well." etc., to reflect the current point of contention as I can see from the edit history , please also cite the link to previous discussions over this in your rfc under "Previous discussions" heading (create it), please modify it before it gets derailed or closed per WP:RFCBEFORE & WP:RFCNEUTRAL. Nxcrypto Message 17:32, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- NXcrypto I don't believe RfCs require explicit links to a previous discussions—WP:RFCBEFORE only states that they must exist, and I don't think any of the current ongoing RfCs listed in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All have what you mention. I'm also aware of WP:RFCNEUTRAL, and I'm pretty sure my RfC question satisfies that; could you explain why you believe it's not?
- I actually gave the RfC question quite some thought; my problems with the article go way beyond just the first sentence of the lead (it includes part of the body as well), so giving options won't quite cover it, and I thought that establishing whether the lead and body are NPOV-compliant and accurate was the best way to resolve them. Malerisch (talk) 17:45, 27 January 2025 (UTC)