User talk:Tholme

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 15:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened up a discussion at Template talk:Weather box#Width. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 02:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dag Hammarskjöld, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Union Minière. 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) 11:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

I created an article about singer Carina Jaarnek today. She died yesterday. If you want to, take a look.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tholme. 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

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)[reply]

Hello, Tholme. 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

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)[reply]

Hello, Tholme. 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

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)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:29, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I saw your fix here. I see there was a stray </div> tag; was that the lint problem? Is there a reason I'm not seeing the error when I go back to that version? (I seem to recall seeing lint errors at some point in the past when previewing pages).

Was there a problem with using {{Nowrap}} around the {{Legend}} items? I did it because without it, it rendered that column unnecessarily narrow, causing the Magenta item to wrap. Thanks for the info. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:31, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. There were three lint errors. The stray </div> was one of them. The {{Legend}} template uses a div which is a block element and since nowrap uses an inline span element you get an Miscellaneous Tidy replacement issues div-span-flip error. I belived that nowrap was not nessesary because the legend had only one word, but that was not the case. I fixed it by manually using a <div class="nowrap"> around Magenta. I'm not sure how you checked the old revision, but with [User:PerfektesChaos/js/lintHint] I can see the error if I edit the old revision. Tholme (talk) 08:29, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Billie JD Porter has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non notable, fails

WP:ENT

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

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. JMHamo (talk) 23:46, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 22:06, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you have been fixing Linter errors. Thanks! I've been working on them for over a year, mostly in Template space and article space; feel free to ping me if you get stuck or if you want to work on a group of them together.

Do you know about

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to [email protected], so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at [email protected].

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We at

2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. We are far from out of the woods with regard to the pandemic and understand that your focus may lie on coronavirus efforts.
We would still like to shine a light on our active medical community, which you are more than welcome to join. As a participant you can ask questions and get help about best practices on editing any health or medical article — on our talk-page

. We are a (mostly) collegial bunch, and I do hope you feel welcome to participate. Currently there are two active communities:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine (talk — The general medical community)
• Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19 (talk — A temporary COVID-19 community)

Please join up!

Best regards,

Carl Fredrik ^talk 09:53, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a

 → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks!

In this edit you changed the header lettering with the edit summary of Revert. This has to do with screen width. It will only fix this for some screen resolutions. The browser will use the space that it has available.) If adjusting it makes it easier to read for some readers and doesn't make a difference to other readers, then why not just leave it alone? I do not understand your reasoning. Shearonink (talk) 15:48, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your work to fix lint errors. I have a suggestion. In your edit summaries, instead of just "lintfix", why not say something about what was wrong or what you changed? This might encourage other editors to look for the same errors or not to make them in the first place. I write detailed edit summaries: Special:Contributions/Anomalocaris. —Anomalocaris (talk) 21:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that tweak. Do you have any ideas how you can force the columns together? Cheers, Number 57 22:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry. The example with two tables works like that, but I don't think it's possible without creating other problems as long as css columns are used. Tholme (talk) 22:59, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Editing talk page archives is generally frowned upon. Are these changes you're making really necessary? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:08, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have read this, as you went and edited a page in my user space. I've rolled back all your "lintfixes" in archives. Please stop making them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't revert my lint fixes. Some of these errors are ruining the whole talk page. The errors makes big portions of the archive indented, which was never the intention. Also don't go around reverting the same minute you send me a message on my talk page. Tholme (talk) 19:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why? You had time to go and edit my user page, but no time to respond to me, so I saw no reason not to revert your inappropriate edits. And since all of your edits simply say "lintfixes", how an I supposed to know which ones are fixing major problem, and which ones -- like the ones I looked at -- were minor changes that shouldn't have been made? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:24, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken: Please talk a look at this revert you did and check the how the Talk:Winter_Soldier_Investigation/Archive_3 page look like now. Do you really think this is constructive? Tholme (talk) 19:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, so it's improperly indented, so what? It's still perfectly readable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:25, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please take another look:

• it's improperly indented
• half the page is in red text instead of the black color it should be in
• The font has been changed to Comic Sans.

I can understand that this is not something you care about, but I do not understand why you think reverting this fix makes wikipedia any better? Tholme (talk) 19:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• (1) Provide a proper edit summary for your edits, saying specifically what you're doing each time. (2) In general, archives don't need to be edited, unless it's something spectacularly bad. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:24, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Most archive pages have this on the top:

This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:29, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#EDIT where fixing format errors and layout errors are specifically allowed (this also goes for the archive pages). My edit summary says lintfix with a link to Special:LintErrors where you can find more information regarding the Lint Errors I'm fixing. I could understand you if all your edits had very good edit summary, but looking through your recent edits, most do not have any edit summary at all... Tholme (talk) 19:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you seeing it say that this is allowable for archives. All I can see is that it's talking about talk pages themselves, not the archives. If we allow people to go around editing archives willy-nilly, people will be changing content to better suit them. It's better not to allow editing at all. Leave the little errors alone. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:15, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond My Ken: Linter fixes do not typically result in changes to the contents of the page, only to the formatting. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'mnot charging Tholme with changing content, and I believe his edits were made in good faith, but -- as I said inthe comment above -- it's best all-around if we just leave the archives alone, unless there's a major spectacular problem which prevents them from being read. Fix little errors in public spaces, fine, but please consider archives to be off limits.

I won't revert any more of Tholme's archive edits, if they pledge not to make these edits in archives anymore. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:17, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond My Ken: I don't think your view has consensus. The page linked above says that this is explicitly permitted: Fixing layout errors: This could include moving a new comment from the top of a page to the bottom, adding a heading to a comment not having one, repairing accidental damage by one party to another's comments, correcting unclosed markup tags that mess up the entire page's formatting, accurately replacing HTML table code with a wikitable, etc. Those are the things that people who fix Linter errors on talk pages (including archived talk pages, of course) are doing. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, talk pages, not talk page archives. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:46, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think the same rules applies for talk pages and talk page archives. Notice (as Jonesey95 already wrote), the template says Do not edit the contents of this page. and not just only Do not edit this page. I also believe there is clear consensus for allowing fixing of layout and formatting errors even in the archive pages. I will reinstate the lintfixes unless you have any good reasons for why not. Tholme (talk) 14:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond My Ken, Jonesey95: Yes, it is correct and proper to edit archive talk pages to remove lint errors, especially lint errors that leak out of their immediate area and cause everything that follows to be indented wrong, or in a font size that is larger or smaller than normal, or in a color or font family different from normal, or in italics or bold or in any way not normal. See: Wikipedia:Linter#How you can help. —Anomalocaris (talk) 21:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LThe age you cited is neither a policy nor a guideline. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond My Ken: Whether WP:Linter is or isn't, strictly speaking, a "policy" or a "guideline", this page has authorized and encouraged editing user talk pages for over two years without controversy. During this time, many thousands of talk pages and many thousands of talk page archives have been edited according to its guidelines with hardly a peep of protest. On a handful of occasions, an interested Wikipedian has raised a polite question. Referencing WP:Linter has always resulted in a reply along the lines of "OK, carry on." When the 2018 Linter upgrade resulted in formerly-OK-looking pages suddenly looking bad, that reinforced the goal of preserving what people saw, and that means fixing lint errors. (Of course, any lint errors that leaked to the end of pages even before the Linter upgrade should also be fixed, because original editors intended their contributions to appear as they would appear without a markup leak from elsewhere on the page.) Cheers! —Anomalocaris (talk) 03:34, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since its not policy, it can;t "authorize" anything, and since it's not a guideline, it can't even "suggest" something. Archives should only be edited out of extreme necessity. Lint errors aren't that. Please stop giving Tholme justification for edits they shouldn't be making. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:54, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond My Ken: You assert,

• In general, archives don't need to be edited, unless it's something spectacularly bad.
• Archives should only be edited out of extreme necessity.

Let's look at the editing history of the archives that Tholme edited most recently. In each case I list each edit from the final archiving to just before Tholme's edit.

Of the 10 archives Tholme edited most recently, 9 had at least one edit between the final archiving and Tholme's edit. One edit prior to Tholme's edit was calmly reverted. The other 35 edits were allowed to stand, including by you. This shows an apparent consensus that it is OK to edit an archive for many reasons. Many of these edits were done to repair problems far smaller than improper indentation, with half the page in the wrong font color and the wrong font face. I hope this disabuses you of your theories about archive editing being reserved for cases that are "spectacularly bad" or out of "extreme necessity". (One final point: it is particularly troubling that you reverted edits of other users' talk archives. For all you know, the users who "own" those pages might be pleased to have their archive pages appearances restored to how they looked before the Linter upgrade that was less tolerant of linty markup.)

Cheers, —Anomalocaris (talk) 08:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit of 9:19, 26 April 2020 of User talk:Signvisas corrected the original linty signature that I was intentionally using to show that the proposed new signature markup had the same output. The user had already updated the signature by then, but the "error" shouldn't have been corrected. —Anomalocaris (talk) 20:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this was hastily fixed. I have now reverted this linfix in this user archive so that your message is correct. Tholme (talk) 19:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC) [reply]

I don't think there's a consensus for stripping font tags from talk pages, as you did in your edit of 20:44, 2 June 2020 of Talk:Freemasonry/Archive 13. —Anomalocaris (talk) 21:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Or, for that matter, stripping tt tags, as you did in your edit of 20:56, 2 June 2020 of Talk:Deaths in 2012/Archive 1. —Anomalocaris (talk) 21:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the first edit. Something must have gone wrong with your script or process, Tholme, because you successfully replaced font tags with span tags (including incorporation of <tt>...</tt> formatting into the span tags) in the second edit. If you made other edits that simply stripped font tags, please revert them and use span tags instead. Thanks! – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:38, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonesey95:, please take another look at the output of the pages. I only stripped non working font tags. Your edit instead replaced it with non working span tags. (hex colors need # in front to work) Tholme (talk) 23:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. I have reverted my edit. Now it's MY script that needs adjusting! – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jonesey95, Tholme: the font tags in Talk:Freemasonry/Archive 13 had hexadecimal colors lacking pound (#), which font markup allows but span markup does not. I have put the colors back in. The appearance is changed now, but it is the same as it was before the Linter upgrade, when font colors wrapping links acted like font colors inside links. Tholme, if you stripped font tags from any other pages, they should be restored. —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I re-added the SVG logo to Mercer (consulting firm) for several reasons: 1- SVG is better; 2- a logo without a tagline is preferable; 3- I'm not 100% sure that the logo on commons is free, it may eventually get deleted. Regards, --Ben Stone 07:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Benstown: Thank you, I agree that svg without tagline is preferable. I'm quite sure that the logo is free, there are only text and simple geometric figures in the logo. You should upload it to commons so that other wikis and wikidata can use the same logo. Tholme (talk) 09:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you have been trying to fix a problem with Results of the 1889 New South Wales colonial election#Mudgee but it seems without success. Is the problem you have identified that Electoral district of Mudgee#1889 currently only excerpts the text and not the table, or is there another issue I haven't noticed? Thanks --Find bruce (talk) 22:56, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Find bruce: Yes this was the problem. I see you have fixed it by removing a surplus return. Thank you! I'm not sure why this fixed the problem? I found the problems by checking for LintErrors (slow loading). There were a few more pages with the same problem. I think I have fixed them now. Tholme (talk) 00:15, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing those. The tables are generated from various election box templates, but I noticed that the excerpt problem only seems to occur when there is a manually entered row. Like you I don't know why it fixed the problem that doesn't appear on the original article, but at least we found a solution. --Find bruce (talk) 03:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have seen you have modified my edits at Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences regarding the template link. Technically speaking, templates are not supposed to use this way because you reach to the template documentation instead of what templates is actually doing when you click on the link in this case. In this particular case, you can still see the Nobel Prize winners list plus other technical items instead of Nobel Prize winners list. In this case, only when {{2019 Nobel Prize winners}} is used, then you get the original template author intended table of Noble Prize winners in Year 2019; and so on. I hope you understand the mechanics of the template, now.Dhawell.hlugalay (talk) 08:17, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Dhawell.hlugalay:. I do not think having navboxes inside infoboxes is OK. A link to a navbox might be ok, but I think the best would be to just remove the previous and related parameters in this infobox if there are nothing better than these templates. Tholme (talk) 08:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tholme: Yup, you made a good point. Previously, I've just focused on what previous editors have made similar inappropriate usage of template and tried to fix that. Well, presentation-wise, we can make something better. Let me think a way with internal linkage to these templates.Dhawell.hlugalay (talk) 09:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Am curious re the purpose of this change. (Is it to make more efficient use of vertical spacing on the page? Or? I see there's no difference when viewing thru the mobile dev viewer.) Ok, --IHTS (talk) 04:46, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ihardlythinkso:. Yes, it was to make more efficient use of vertical spacing on the page. Tholme (talk) 23:45, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Was this an attempt to fix the linter issue? Please engage at Talk, if so, because I'm not sure what the intent was, and others are still looking at that. Appreciate the desire to help out at the lorem template, but your fix broke multiple test cases, and I had to revert it. It also broke examples on the /doc page, which you would have seen in Preview mode before hitting Publish. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 17:30, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot:. Sorry. Yes it was an attempt to fix linter errors, but it didn't. It was an hastily and poorly testet edit that I should not have done. Thank you for the revert. Tholme (talk) 17:41, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me to where I can see linter errors in a sandbox page and/or testcases page? If you look at the discussion on Talk, I have a vague sort of idea of what's going on, and I think the paired p-tags idea may fix it because there won't be any more newlines within the span scope I don't think. If linter stuff requires certain permissions, then I can try making that change I suggested at Talk to the sandbox, and you could check the linter results after. Does any of this make sense? Mathglot (talk) 17:47, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In my first attempt at trying to track an error with Linthint I found one: missing end tag for i at Mass killings under communist regimes. I checked the source and find 535 <i> and 535 </i>. I highlighted strings delimited by start-i and end-i just to see if the tags got out of sync somewhere or backwards or something, but it all looks good. Is there a way to configure Linthint to point to where the error is? Otherwise, how do I go forward from here to see what the error is that Linthint is reporting? (please  mention me on reply; thanks!) Mathglot (talk) 04:27, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Here's how I do it: Click Edit, then click the yellow LintHint button at the upper right. It will list the Linter errors. Click the down arrow next to any one to highlight it. Some caveats: It will sometimes highlight a big block, like a table or a template, instead of pinpointing the error; you have to inspect manually. If you fix an error at the top and then click to highlight a lower error, the highlighting may be offset if you added or removed characters above; start at the bottom of the error list to avoid this problem. It can help to have a syntax highlighter enabled, because sometimes the highlighting is somewhere after the error, and you can look backwards to see where the highlighting breaks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:27, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot: Hi. As Jonesey95 says you can click on the arrow next to the linterror when in edit mode. In Mass killings under communist regimes it will highlight the paragraph from revisionism]]'' and till the end. While the missing tag is not in this last italic marking, if you take a look further up in the same paragraph you can see that there is missing a ' in '[[Fascist (epithet)|fascist]]''. If you have syntax hightlighting enabled you can also see that the whole end of this paragraph is in italics (or look at the page itself). Hope this was helpfull. Tholme (talk) 15:52, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tholme! I see you've gone around changing {{

Hey - I hadn't noticed your fixing of my user subpage - thank you very much. I knew there was something wrong with the syntax but I couldn't quite work out what. Bobo. 03:30, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I finally figured it out! I tried to remove the murder trolling out of it. But I got to an old version of the article through a link on slashdot. That made me edit a really old version of the article. Should be more careful when clicking links! Sorry! 85.76.97.34 (talk) 18:09, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]