Egon Willighagen
Welcome!
|
Proposed deletion of Tetrahedron Computer Methodology
edit
The article Tetrahedron Computer Methodology has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Failed journal that existed only for a brief time. Not indexed anywhere, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Randykitty (talk) 09:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Randykitty and Davidwr: oh, that's annoying... I would not have added if it was not listed on this list of missing journals :( --Egon Willighagen (talk) 09:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry about that. I was hardly aware of those lists. They're pretty old and the community is decidedly less inclusive nowadays concerning academic journals (see the discussion on the talk page of WP:NJournals). When I find a moment, I'll place a note on those pages that articles should only be created for journals that meet WP:GNG or NJournals. Happy New Year! --Randykitty (talk) 09:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Randykitty: I will argue on the page's Talk page that I think that this journal was noteworthy. I have to figure out all the details, but it's an early experiment for sharing scientific source code. This is about to get common, but this paper predates the internet and this was an innovative way of sharing information. But I agree I need to dig up more info. The experiment is also noteworthy in that some papers have shown to be highly influentual, like paper on the CORINA, the industry standard for creating 3D chemical structures; I'll try to add that paper to the appropriate Wikipedia pages, and have the citation link to the journal page.[1]
- Sorry about that. I was hardly aware of those lists. They're pretty old and the community is decidedly less inclusive nowadays concerning academic journals (see the discussion on the talk page of WP:NJournals). When I find a moment, I'll place a note on those pages that articles should only be created for journals that meet WP:GNG or NJournals. Happy New Year! --Randykitty (talk) 09:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
References
- ^ Gasteiger, J.; Rudolph, C.; Sadowski, J. (January 1990). "Automatic generation of 3D-atomic coordinates for organic molecules". Tetrahedron Computer Methodology. 3 (6): 537–547. doi:10.1016/0898-5529(90)90156-3.
- Well, thing is of course that it doesn't matter whether something is noteworthy (i.e., worthy of note). What is important is whether something has verifiably been noted in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. That is usually very difficult for academic journals, even ones that had a much longer history than this one. Articles that appeared in the journal may of course be used as references in other WP articles where appropriate, but that doesn't make the journal notable. --Randykitty (talk) 10:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, indeed. But I'm on it. I already added the ISSN and OLCL IDs but am actively looking for an independent source.--Egon Willighagen (talk) 10:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- OK, let me know if I can help (I have access to quite a lot of sources that are behind paywalls). --Randykitty (talk) 10:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Randykitty:OK, I found to further independent sources. It's hard to find them, as most search hits for the journal name are just citations of articles in the journal. Can you give me some pointers how I'm doing? Is it enough for now? Can I remove the 'delete proposal' notice? --Egon Willighagen (talk) 11:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- OK, let me know if I can help (I have access to quite a lot of sources that are behind paywalls). --Randykitty (talk) 10:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, indeed. But I'm on it. I already added the ISSN and OLCL IDs but am actively looking for an independent source.--Egon Willighagen (talk) 10:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Well, thing is of course that it doesn't matter whether something is noteworthy (i.e., worthy of note). What is important is whether something has verifiably been noted in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. That is usually very difficult for academic journals, even ones that had a much longer history than this one. Articles that appeared in the journal may of course be used as references in other WP articles where appropriate, but that doesn't make the journal notable. --Randykitty (talk) 10:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Going in the right direction! :-) --Randykitty (talk) 13:46, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- OK, great! I have sent out an email to a mailing list about chemical information, and hope to get some further sources too. Also, I am trying to figure out of those floppy disks still exist :) Or at the very least the content of those floppies... --Egon Willighagen (talk) 13:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- You should also have a look at Nature, which in those days often published reviews of new journals (they stopped doing that, i guess because there are too many news ones being created nowadays). They might have covered this one... I have no time myself right now. --Randykitty (talk) 14:01, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Randykitty: Found it! There actually was a dedicated article about it!!! Thanks for the encouragement. This is excellent material for the Journal of Cheminformatics editorial were writing up :) --Egon Willighagen (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Excellent! I've removed the PROD tag. --Randykitty (talk) 16:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Randykitty: Found it! There actually was a dedicated article about it!!! Thanks for the encouragement. This is excellent material for the Journal of Cheminformatics editorial were writing up :) --Egon Willighagen (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- You should also have a look at Nature, which in those days often published reviews of new journals (they stopped doing that, i guess because there are too many news ones being created nowadays). They might have covered this one... I have no time myself right now. --Randykitty (talk) 14:01, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
A page you started (Compound Interest (website)) has been reviewed!
editThanks for creating Compound Interest (website), Egon Willighagen!
Wikipedia editor Nick Moyes just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
This seems just about on the right side of borderline notable (see WP:WEBNOTE), so could I invite you to expand on it a bit further? Enlarging on the media interest mentioned in the references would be especially helpful
To reply, leave a comment on Nick Moyes's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
Nick Moyes (talk) 15:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
- I have added two Forbes articles citing Compound Interest (website) --Egon Willighagen (talk) 15:59, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
edit
Hello, Egon Willighagen. 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)
Facto Post – Issue 20 – 31 January 2019
editFacto Post – Issue 20 – 31 January 2019
 The Editor is Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him, on his User talk page.
To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see the footer.
Recently Jimmy Wales has made the point that computer home assistants take much of their data from Wikipedia, one way or another. So as well as getting Spotify to play Frosty the Snowman for you, they may be able to answer the question "is the Pope Catholic?" Possibly by asking for disambiguation (Coptic?). Headlines about data breaches are now familiar, but the unannounced circulation of information raises other issues. One of those is Gresham's law stated as "bad data drives out good". Wikipedia and now Wikidata have been criticised on related grounds: what if their content, unattributed, is taken to have a higher standing than Wikimedians themselves would grant it? See Wikiquote on a misattribution to Bismarck for the usual quip about "law and sausages", and why one shouldn't watch them in the making. Wikipedia has now turned 18, so should act like as adult, as well as being treated like one. The Web itself turns 30 some time between March and November this year, per Tim Berners-Lee. If the Knowledge Graph by Google exemplifies Heraclitean Web technology gaining authority, contra GIGO, Wikimedians still have a role in its critique. But not just with the teenage skill of detecting phoniness. There is more to beating Gresham than exposing the factoid and urban myth, where WP:V does do a great job. Placeholders must be detected, and working with Wikidata is a good way to understand how having one statement as data can blind us to replacing it by a more accurate one. An example that is important to open access is that, firstly, the term itself needs considerable unpacking, because just being able to read material online is a poor relation of "open"; and secondly, trying to get Creative Commons license information into Wikidata shows up issues with classes of license (such as CC-BY) standing for the actual license in major repositories. Detailed investigation shows that "everything flows" exacerbates the issue. But Wikidata can solve it.
If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Facto Post – Issue 21 – 28 February 2019
edit| Facto Post – Issue 21 – 28 February 2019
The Editor is Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him, on his User talk page.
To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see the footer.
Systematic reviews are basic building blocks of evidence-based medicine, surveys of existing literature devoted typically to a definite question that aim to bring out scientific conclusions. They are principled in a way Wikipedians can appreciate, taking a critical view of their sources.  Ben Goldacre in 2014 wrote (link below) "[...] : the "information architecture" of evidence based medicine (if you can tolerate such a phrase) is a chaotic, ad hoc, poorly connected ecosystem of legacy projects. In some respects the whole show is still run on paper, like it's the 19th century." Is there a Wikidatan in the house? Wouldn't some machine-readable content that is structured data help? Most likely it would, but the arcana of systematic reviews and how they add value would still need formal handling. The PRISMA standard dates from 2009, with an update started in 2018. The concerns there include the corpus of papers used: how selected and filtered? Now that Wikidata has a 20.9 million item bibliography, one can at least pose questions. Each systematic review is a tagging opportunity for a bibliography. Could that tagging be reproduced by a query, in principle? Can it even be second-guessed by a query (i.e. simulated by a protocol which translates into SPARQL)? Homing in on the arcana, do the inclusion and filtering criteria translate into metadata? At some level they must, but are these metadata explicitly expressed in the articles themselves? The answer to that is surely "no" at this point, but can TDM find them? Again "no", right now. Automatic identification doesn't just happen. Actually these questions lack originality. It should be noted though that WP:MEDRS, the reliable sources guideline used here for health information, hinges on the assumption that the usefully systematic reviews of biomedical literature can be recognised. Its nutshell summary, normally the part of a guideline with the highest density of common sense, allows literature reviews in general validity, but WP:MEDASSESS qualifies that indication heavily. Process wonkery about systematic reviews definitely has merit.
If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Facto Post – Issue 22 – 28 March 2019
edit| Facto Post – Issue 22 – 28 March 2019
The Editor is Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him, on his User talk page.
To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see the footer.
Half a century ago, it was the era of the mainframe computer, with its air-conditioned room, twitching tape-drives, and appearance in the title of a spy novel Billion-Dollar Brain then made into a Hollywood film. Now we have the cloud, with server farms and the client–server model as quotidian: this text is being typed on a Chromebook. The term Applications Programming Interface or API is 50 years old, and refers to a type of software library as well as the interface to its use. While a compiler is what you need to get high-level code executed by a mainframe, an API out in the cloud somewhere offers a chance to perform operations on a remote server. For example, the multifarious bots active on Wikipedia have owners who exploit the MediaWiki API. APIs (called RESTful) that allow for the GET HTTP request are fundamental for what could colloquially be called "moving data around the Web"; from which Wikidata benefits 24/7. So the fact that the Wikidata SPARQL endpoint at query.wikidata.org has a RESTful API means that, in lay terms, Wikidata content can be GOT from it. The programming involved, besides the SPARQL language, could be in Python, younger by a few months than the Web. Magic words, such as occur in fantasy stories, are wishful (rather than RESTful) solutions to gaining access. You may need to be a linguist to enter Ali Baba's cave or the western door of Moria (French in the case of "Open Sesame", in fact, and Sindarin being the respective languages). Talking to an API requires a bigger toolkit, which first means you have to recognise the tools in terms of what they can do. On the way to the wikt:impactful or polymathic modern handling of facts, one must perhaps take only tactful notice of tech's endemic problem with documentation, and absorb the insightful point that the code in APIs does articulate the customary procedures now in place on the cloud for getting information. As Owl explained to Winnie-the-Pooh, it tells you The Thing to Do.
If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:45, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Facto Post – Issue 23 – 30 April 2019
edit| Facto Post – Issue 23 – 30 April 2019
The Editor is Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him, on his User talk page.
To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see the footer.
 Talk of cloud computing draws a veil over hardware, but also, less obviously but more importantly, obscures such intellectual distinction as matters most in its use. Wikidata begins to allow tasks to be undertaken that were out of easy reach. The facility should not be taken as the real point. Coming in from another angle, the "executive decision" is more glamorous; but the "administrative decision" should be admired for its command of facts. Think of the attitudes ad fontes, so prevalent here on Wikipedia as "can you give me a source for that?", and being prepared to deal with complicated analyses into specified subcases. Impatience expressed as a disdain for such pedantry is quite understandable, but neither dirty data nor false dichotomies are at all good to have around. Issue 13 and Issue 21, respectively on WP:MEDRS and systematic reviews, talk about biomedical literature and computing tasks that would be of higher quality if they could be made more "administrative". For example, it is desirable that the decisions involved be consistent, explicable, and reproducible by non-experts from specified inputs. What gets clouded out is not impossibly hard to understand. You do need to put together the insights of functional programming, which is a doctrinaire and purist but clearcut approach, with the practicality of office software. Loopless computation can be conceived of as a seamless forward march of spreadsheet columns, each determined by the content of previous ones. Very well: to do a backward audit, when now we are talking about Wikidata, we rely on integrity of data and its scrupulous sourcing: and clearcut case analyses. The MEDRS example forces attention on purge attempts such as Beall's list.
If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Facto Post – Issue 24 – 17 May 2019
editFacto Post – Issue 24 – 17 May 2019 The Editor is Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him, on his User talk page.
To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see the footer.
Two dozen issues, and this may be the last, a valediction at least for a while. It's time for a two-year summation of ContentMine projects involving TDM (text and data mining). Wikidata and now Structured Data on Commons represent the overlap of Wikimedia with the Semantic Web. This common ground is helping to convert an engineering concept into a movement. TDM generally has little enough connection with the Semantic Web, being instead in the orbit of machine learning which is no respecter of the semantic. Don't break a taboo by asking bots "and what do you mean by that?" The ScienceSource project innovates in TDM, by storing its text mining results in a Wikibase site. It strives for compliance of its fact mining, on drug treatments of diseases, with an automated form of the relevant Wikipedia referencing guideline MEDRS. Where WikiFactMine set up an API for reuse of its results, ScienceSource has a SPARQL query service, with look-and-feel exactly that of Wikidata's at query.wikidata.org. It also now has a custom front end, and its content can be federated, in other words used in data mashups: it is one of over 50 sites that can federate with Wikidata. The human factor comes to bear through the front end, which combines a link to the HTML version of a paper, text mining results organised in drug and disease columns, and a SPARQL display of nearby drug and disease terms. Much software to develop and explain, so little time! Rather than telling the tale, Facto Post brings you ScienceSource links, starting from the how-to video, lower right.
The review tool requires a log in on sciencesource.wmflabs.org, and an OAuth permission (bottom of a review page) to operate. It can be used in simple and more advanced workflows. Examples of queries for the latter are at d:Wikidata_talk:ScienceSource project/Queries#SS_disease_list and d:Wikidata_talk:ScienceSource_project/Queries#NDF-RT issue. Please be aware that this is a research project in development, and may have outages for planned maintenance. That will apply for the next few days, at least. The ScienceSource wiki main page carries information on practical matters. Email is not enabled on the wiki: use site mail here to Charles Matthews in case of difficulty, or if you need support. Further explanatory videos will be put into commons:Category:ContentMine videos. If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery |
DYK for Nanoinformatics
edit
On 22 August 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Nanoinformatics, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the structure of nanoparticle cancer drugs affects their function in such complex ways that nanoinformatics approaches are useful? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Nanoinformatics. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Nanoinformatics), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
edit| | 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 |
Wikipedia Bots
editHi! Can you please tell me how I can write a Wikipedia Bot? Bilal190023 (talk) 11:13, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- No, never done that, sorry. --Egon Willighagen (talk) 20:36, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
edit| | 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 |
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
edit| | 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 |
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) 01:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Journal of Organic and Pharmaceutical Chemistry has been accepted
edit
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thanks again, and happy editing!
asilvering (talk) 23:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC)- Hi, I've accepted this because I think there would at least be an argument over keeping the article if sent to AfD, given its association with the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine and its much older originating journal, but I would suggest that you find an independent source for the history of the journal, as the sourcing for the article as it stands now is relatively weak. The abbreviation is also throwing up a template error, fyi. -- asilvering (talk) 23:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, noted. I will double check the ISO4. About the first, I have requested that already, but not heard back yet. I will let them know it has been created now, as an extra encouragement. Egon Willighagen (talk) 04:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
The article Journal of Organic and Pharmaceutical Chemistry has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Randykitty (talk) 12:20, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback. I created a draft on purpose and requested feedback. It was approved. Getting immediately proposed for deletion suggests that English Wikipedia should revisit their Draft review process again. Regarding notability, this info is not easy to find, and I apologies I missed it. I am surprised Chemical Abstracts not recognized as a selective source, however. Egon Willighagen (talk) 09:36, 25 August 2023 (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) 00:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)