User talk:Sojambi Pinola

Archive 1 August 14, 2005 - February 15, 2006

oh well. that's that. oh well, you win. I'm on to other things.Mack Plant

Album cover art

Hi. I noticed you uploaded some high-resolution album covers w/ reduced dimensions. I'm talking about 'Genius of Modern Music 1' & '2' by Thelonious Monk. Are there any copies of the covers with larger dimensions? Thanks. --Paerra (talk) 00:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Fill Your Heart. -Will Beback 12:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let sleeping dogs lie, please. -Will Beback 09:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't feed the troll. -Will Beback 08:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:LP 5002 Monk.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:LP 5002 Monk.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? J Milburn (talk) 19:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:LP 5009 Monk.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:LP 5009 Monk.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? J Milburn (talk) 19:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:LP 5011 Jackson.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:LP 5011 Jackson.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? J Milburn (talk) 19:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:BLP 1509 Jackson.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:BLP 1509 Jackson.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? J Milburn (talk) 19:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:BLP 1510 Monk.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:BLP 1510 Monk.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? J Milburn (talk) 19:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:BLP 1511 Monk.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:BLP 1511 Monk.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? J Milburn (talk) 19:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Thelonious Monk album images

The material was orphaned (I orphaned it in removing it from the article) and the material is non-free- as such, album cover or not, the material must meet all the conditions that our non-free content guidelines explain. Whether the article is technically a discography or not is purely semantics- it contains no critical commentary of the covers or even, particularly, of the albums. You may want to take a look at Betacommand's explanation of the issue. If you want to request a third opinion on this matter, you're welcome to post at the non-free content talk page. J Milburn (talk) 19:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me out? Call me dense, but I'm having trouble following this, especially since the Wikipedia form page that I used for the uploads has a whole section explaining why album covers are OK. Would it be OK on a devoted to that one and only album?

If so, can I "un-orphan" these images if I upload them to their respective album pages instead? (for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genius_of_Modern_Music:_Volume_1) And if so, how?

thank you. Sojambi Pinola (talk) 21:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An album cover can be placed in the infobox on the article about that album uncontroversially. In the infobox template, just put add example.jpg (not image:example.jpg) after "cover =" . J Milburn (talk) 21:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you can use the {{Extra album cover 2}}, placing it in the 'misc' section of the advanced album infobox. See this section for details. J Milburn (talk) 21:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

Hi, I wanted to thank you for the brilliant amount of work you put into the Nicky Hopkins article. It's so hard to find people who are willing to cover the very important role that session musicians provide. I feel some others: David Lindley, drummers Steve Jordan, and Vinnie Colaiuta, bassist Pino Palladino, and guitarists Alun Davies (of Cat Stevens work), and Waddy Wachtel have all suffered in the same manner. (Sorry, it's a pseudo-pitch for help, since I feel they should also get credit!) If I can help you in editing, let me know. If you can take a look at any of these folks, it would be appreciated. However, anything more for Nicky would be great, too. Currently, I'm also trying to put together pages for all of the above (yeah), and Jaco Pastorious, who has been sadly overlooked. Unfortunately, I often get distracted! Thanks for your time. --leahtwosaints (talk) 23:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Belle of Avenue A

Thanks for this article; remember, however, that articles must be referenced. Verifiability is one of our most important policies, and the creation of unreferenced articles can lead to blocks; far better to just reference them! Regards, Ironholds (talk) 21:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Y3LP_Slits.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Y3LP_Slits.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Chris G Bot (talk) 02:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Wooly Bully"

Yes sir, that was me. I sang the song, which everybody loves, with a rock band in the 70s, and usually did some variation on that summary in introducing the song. Thank you for the compliment and for going to the trouble of tracking me down. Ortolan88 (talk) 19:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

March 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Little Richard discography may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• 2"|''[[Little_Richard_Is_Back_(And_There's_a_Whole_Lotta_Shakin'_Goin'_On!)|Little Richard is Back (And There's a Whole Lotta Shakin' Goin' On!]]''

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:47, 19 March 2014 (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) 13:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Sojambi Pinola. 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, Sojambi Pinola. 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, Sojambi Pinola. 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]

Crossing Delancey (original soundtrack album) moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Crossing Delancey (original soundtrack album), does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to understand what citations would be needed for this article. It's a movie soundtrack by a famous music group. "Stub" I'd understand. What's missing? Sojambi Pinola (talk) 01:02, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Crossing Delancey.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Crossing Delancey.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:28, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was being used in an article until CASSIOPEIA "drafted" it.Sojambi Pinola (talk) 01:03, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Crossing Delancey (soundtrack) (August 13)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by AngusWOOF were:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Crossing Delancey (soundtrack) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Crossing Delancey (soundtrack), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:47, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sojambi Pinola! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:47, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discogs

Discogs is not a reliable source and should not be used, per WP:ALBUM/SOURCE and WP:SPS. Thank you. Dan56 (talk) 02:33, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot provide an alternative source for your area of research. Keep in mind that, at Wikipedia, "the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material" (WP:PROVEIT). Dan56 (talk) 04:14, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 2019

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on Thelonious Monk Trio. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Dan56 (talk) 22:45, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add sources to the extensive work I did on that page, which has been long FULL of unsourced AND sourced inaccuracies, that I did not put there. I ran out of time, yesterday. Thank you for your warning, in any event. And you're welcome for my attempt at improving the article. Someone has to do it. Sojambi Pinola (talk) 15:42, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've now sourced the heck out of the pages. I hope you adore them. Sojambi Pinola (talk) 02:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the bulk of your changes; because you cited questionable and flat-out unreliable sources like WordPress blogs and forums and a jazz discography site with no discernable background or credibility; because you composed a personal-research paragraph about history of LP albums with no reliable source making this connection to the album (which violates Wikipedia's principle of [[WP:NOR|no original research]); and because the previous revision made more sense to the general reader, whereas your new paragraphs and wording would intimidate anyone but a specialist in jazz who lacks a good sense for research and encyclopedic writing. Please do not restore. I am willing to discuss your qualms at the article talk page if you would still like, per WP:BRD. Dan56 (talk) 05:15, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there is no such thing as a "re-compilation", at least not in any of the sources you've cited; no such wording exists, and it is misleading to render a source saying "revamped" as that. (WP:STICKTOSOURCE) Dan56 (talk) 05:23, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your intentions seem good, but you have to become a bit more competent as an encyclopedia editor. Please read up on source reliability and the guidelines I linked in my previous comments above. And you can always go to the reliable source noticeboard for determining a source's reliability if you are not sure. Dan56 (talk) 05:24, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will not "restore," but I fully intend to work on this page until it is historically accurate. I don't know how you unilaterally determine that you are the arbiter of what a "general reader" needs to know; I don't think they "need to know", inaccurately, that this is an album as Monk intended it, when it clearly was not. This wasn't Monk's first "Studio album," but the page has claimed that for years. I also find that you are not even enforcing your own rules consistently. You are demanding that we make a Miles Davis 1950 session album "1957," (which I think "general reader" would find confusing and misleading) yet when I try to place _this_ Monk album as a later compilation (while honoring the session links, which I agree with) you are, in effect, forcing it to be back-dated to 1954 by removing the information that explains otherwise. Which is it going to be? In each case, I'm trying to find the least-confusing middle ground. While I will work on improving my sources, I'm really throwing up my hands as to how to handle your assessments of what is appropriate content for the article. These are not my POV's--they are the factual circumstances surrounding this release.

I know there's an air of complaint here, but I hope you can read this as a desire to work WITH you. I spent a good 6 hours (or more) yesterday trying to meet your standards, so I'm pretty frustrated, which means I feel helpless. Sojambi Pinola (talk) 19:35, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You keep making the same policy and guideline violations, so I have the right to issue you warnings for it, especially given you've been around here long enough to know better. I'm sorry you exhausted your time and energy, and I'm sorry your changes did not adhere to the site's standards of reliability and neutrality, among other things. WP:EXPERT#Advice for expert editors: "The genre here is 'encyclopedia'—each article is meant to provide 'a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject'". WP:EXPERT: "The mission of Wikipedia is to provide articles that summarize accepted knowledge regarding their subjects... We generally find 'accepted knowledge' in high quality secondary sources like literature reviews and books." That is how we determine what the general reader should know, as opposed to pawning off claims from questionable sources as fact. You are not exempt from adhering to an encyclopedia's fundamental principles. I appropriately explained what was wrong with your sources, but I'm sorry you have nothing to say about that and did not seem to listen or read any of the guidelines and essays of relevance that I linked, and instead are more focused on taking it personally. I do not know what else to say. Sorry. Dan56 (talk) 22:51, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You need to cite reliable sources. I have demonstrated how the sources you cited are inappropriate, questionable, and unreliable. If you feel otherwise, there is a reason I recommended WP:RSN. Dan56 (talk) 22:54, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will read the article about reliable sources and replace my links with those. This does not explain your justification for several of your other reversals. I guess we'll get to that next. Sojambi Pinola (talk) 23:07, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BTW.....re "recompilation" "Recompilation" www.merriam-webster.com It's a real thing. I admit that my hyphen was a bit out of line. I didn't know that Wikipedia had a rule against synonyms. Sojambi Pinola (talk) 03:42, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing the word doesn't exist. I'm making the indisputable observation that the word doesn't exist in any of the sources you've cited. Dan56 (talk) 15:59, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mini-LPs

Thank you for your recently-created articles on mini-LPs from the jazz masters. Note that the TYPE field in the album infobox requires certain sortable values, and "mini-LP" is not one of them. See also TYPE at Template:Infobox album. If a musician or record company chooses to use an unconventional term like "mini-LP" it can be described in your article's main text. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:00, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!!!! I will look into this! It was a lot of work, even just trying to get a parallel navigation (Mini-Lps vs LPs) to snap into place, and I'm still refining it.

It's not really an "unconventional" term, just a convention that has more or less gone away. "mini-LP" is redesignation of what was THE standard long-playing format from 1948 until around 1956, when 12" records replaced them. So we no longer think of these as "LPs", as they hold about half of the running time.

Anyway, thank you again! Sojambi Pinola (talk) 15:39, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV violations

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Birth of the Cool and Thelonious Monk Trio, you may be blocked from editing. Dan56 (talk) 05:16, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dan56, I've responded on your page. I appreciate your response about about my intentions, which I just saw. Thank you. Sojambi Pinola (talk) 18:47, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user has been on Wikipedia for 19 years, 7 months and 3 days.

Disruptive editing

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Thelonious Monk Trio, you may be blocked from editing. Dan56 (talk) 15:59, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Signal1201-original.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Signal1201-original.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:06, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Signal-second1201.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Signal-second1201.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:07, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 2019

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Thelonious Monk Trio. isento (talk) 15:44, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Isento, formerly [Dan 56], What I wrote was factually correct and an appropriate reference to that citation. The information in that discography I cited is _in_contradiction_ with the other source that you insist on: 1956, vs 1954. And, the sequence of the three albums is as he states, and matches the sequence of serial numbers, not as YOU continue to state, inaccurately. What you keep insisting on --the date of 1954-- is NOT factually correct. I do not believe that restating this rather mundane and obvious information falls in the category of "original research." It is re-working and re-organizing of obvious and easily available data to conform with the format of Wikipedia. You, on the other hand, have a history of cleaving so closely to sources that your work has been accused repeatedly of plagiarism--with good reason. I don't think you actually get the concept.

If need be, I can continue supplying other sources of this information-- Wikipedia does not claim that every single source of this information in existence be used. It's just a time-consuming hassle.

Who is going to do this "blocking"? And why? I interpret what you are doing here as a threat, and it's in the interest of upholding a series of inaccurate pages, for reasons unknown other than you authored them, far from perfectly or accurately. It is also in keeping with your history of "owning" pages and refusing to work collaboratively.

If you want to put forth a "blocking" motion against me, go ahead. I have kept track of your LONG history on this score, and I will get the appropriate admins lined up to boomerang your butt. I'm doing appropriate if imperfect work on improving these pages, in the spirit of collaboration. You aren't working with me; you are merely reversing all my work wholesale. I suggest YOU back off. Sojambi Pinola (talk) 22:29, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request for counsel regarding Isento aka Dan56--what to do, here?

I would appreciate some counsel and potential support, here, by those of you who have dealt in the past with this editor. I do _not_ wish to drag this into an incident report, but I find statements such as this and earlier, this and this, by Isento (aka [Dan 56] to act as an ongoing threat to my ability to edit on Wikipedia; not to mention that they stress me out, whether or not that's the intent. (I can't tell, but the result is very real.) My edits have been imperfect, and I am learning. But the threats of being blocked, and wholesale reverts, are escalating even as I source my edits better, and use more and more exact language.

​​​​​​​​​​​Can I even be blocked "without further warning"? This certainly looks to me like pattern of intimidation, unilateral reverting, hounding and page-owning by a repeat offender on this score, who has for some (possibly benign) reason recently changed his name and tried to hide his history as [Dan 56]. The ones on my talk page are not his only threats towards me, on what I feel are innocuous (if sometimes imperfect) and thoroughly appropriate-in-intent corrective edits on a series of jazz album pages. Thank you for your time; I hope not to waste your energy or stress you. If any of you can direct me towards further resources or allies, I would appreciate it. Thanks again.Sojambi Pinola (talk) 00:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I...uh...I'm not sure I have sufficient context here, or the time to find it. Umm...User:Ritchie333, you deal with some contemporary music topics don't you? GMG^talk 00:14, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I know, I tried to keep it brief but maybe I was too brief. If nothing else I'm wondering about the threat directly above regarding "blocking without warning." I didn't know "blocking" happened on Wikipedia without a process, so this registers (to me) as bullying outside of the way things work. I pinged you because you weighed in on a prior incident regarding this same user, which has a lot of similarities (IMO) to this one. Sojambi Pinola (talk) 00:25, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think your entire line of participation in these Monk articles shows a pattern of incompetence, bad-faith accusations (these kind of comments make me concerned for your mental health), and knee-jerk, emotional reaction to the slightest grievance toward your edits, as can be seen in above discussions here and those at the article talk page, one of three places -- along with my talk page and this one -- where you've pinged me all at once. I issued you a level-4 warning for continuing to add original research and personal analysis to the article, because you had been warned (and lectured) numerous times before, both here and at the article talk page, about not doing this. I have urged you to be proper and adherent to core policies and guidelines, and I have even solicited experienced editors -- @Walter Görlitz:}, @Ojorojo: -- at your request for outside comment, and they both disagreed with your stance on the content in dispute. I have indulged your immaturities and misapprehensions (including falsehoods and slander at the article talk page), and I have responded thoroughly and thoughtfully all this time (which even you at one point expressed appreciation for). But I won't indulge your personal attacks, your suggestions that I'm a bully, your drudging up of content disputes from years ago, etc. You have an unhealthy way of dealing with people who don't agree with you, and from the intensity of your remarks all throughout these exchanges, it does not seem to be good on you. I would advise you to take a break for your own good. isento (talk) 01:03, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed your spurious claim of "original research" on the talk page of Thelonious Monk Trio. It's an inaccurate claim.

You are reverting edits instead of improving the articles, and you refuse to address my (IMO) perfectly logical responses to your persistent anti-chronological orderings of these three albums --which were released in an easy-to-prove sequence in 1956, reordering/repackaging much 5 shorter albums released in 1952-1954. All of the data I include which pretty much proves their year and sequence gets removed by you and called "original research." Similar arguments on talk pages are ignored. It it simply cited, provable information, consistently upheld by experts. This is distinct from our debate about the use of infoboxes as navigation, which you seem to have agreement on from a couple of other users, and may be legit, even as I find it confusing. I left that issue alone in my last edit, and you still reverted my next edit.

You are not collaborating, and you are consistently threatening me with blocking. You've done it at least 4 times on my page, and you do it as you revert my edits. I am giving you no comparable warnings in response. This sort of thing is an ongoing complaint against you by various users, stretching back years.

I've "been warned and lectured numerous times," yes. As of late, exclusively by you. So your phrasing is a little misleading, there. I don't think there's a consensus about the quality of my edits.

I'm bringing up old disputes because your behavior has not changed a lick, as far as I can tell. If anything, you've just learned the lingo directed at you, and are using it as a weapon to get your way.

My "unhealthy way of dealing with people who don't agree with" me involves attempting to discuss our disagreements, logically, on talk pages, without threats, and with appeals to help me improve the articles in question in ways that work for you. When asked if a certain source might be acceptable after you had dismissed several others, your response was an annoyed (I paraphrase) "why would I have a problem with that??!?!" as if I hadn't had several hours of citation work already wholesale reverted by you. I think the record will show that I have done my best to work with you, to no avail. This link you are pointing to comes after the umptheenth unilateral "warning" from you and wholesale revert (as opposed to revision).

Your assessment of my edits as "incompetent" appears to be yours alone, and it is insulting, to boot. I will say that the pages as you left them before my edits (and to some extent now, with edits reverted) were worded confusingly, and were provably inaccurate. And they remain so. I wouldn't throw such an insulting term as "incompetent" around here, about you or anyone else; nonetheless, I certainly saw room for improvement, and began working on polishing those pages, as one does here.

And now you are challenging my mental health. I think the only evidence in favor of your argument is that I've taken far too much time and verbiage writing this response....but I've been dealing with your hounding since August. I hope it stops here.

The pages in question, by the way, are:

Thelonious_Monk_Trio ((Prestige LP 7027)

Monk_(1956_album) (Prestige PRLP 7053)

Thelonious_Monk_and_Sonny_Rollins (Prestige PRLP 7075)

Note the ascending sequence of serial numbers. This is a surefire indication that this is the sequence in which they were released. And this is the order in which they always appear in discographies.

At some point, I included airtight evidence that Prestige did not switch to a long-playing 12-inch format until 1956. At that point, they reformatted their catalog of shorter albums into repackaged, longer-duration collections that they thought would sell better. Therefore, your persistent claim that the first and third of these came out in 1954 would be unlikely, even if it weren't provably false. But it's provable. You consider all the evidence to be "esoteric" (I think that was your term) or original research. It is neither. But you remove it, nonetheless. Sojambi Pinola (talk) 01:43, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will ignore your personal attacks and delusional remarks to focus on the Chris Sheridan book source and catalog listing that remains your only reliable source for the claims you're purporting as indisputable fact. Page 295, caption above the listing of Prestige releases, reads:

"Prestige numbering was altered several times during the label's independent existence. Our listing has been guided by the number on the sleeve, even when the label number may have differed slightly: eg. 7000 series albums often used the suffix LP on sleeve (and in advertisements) but on the label it may have been PRLP."

"...label number may have differed slightly..." reads like qualifying and cautioning the reader about the possibility the listing is not indisputable fact. Which is why Wikipedia articles are based on multiple third-party sources (WP:Third-party source), and when reliable sources conflict with each other, we report both. We "do not choose which one is 'true' and discard the others as incorrect. (Wikipedia:Conflicting sources). isento (talk) 05:58, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When I have some time, I will back up my assertion and sources regarding the dating of those albums. I have in fact previously posted other sources which are more historically-minded and reliable than some of the reviews you are now citing. You removed them. In the meantime, I have found Wikipedia precedents and policies for using such sources when no others exist, as a second-line solution, and I will back them up with these arguments when I have the energy.

I feel your expression of "concern for my mental health" here is unlikely to be sincere, and amounts to a not-so-sly personal attack, for the record. It would be interesting to see how others pinged would interpret that comment by you. Is my interpretation of that comment delusional, you think? On the flip side, I believe I have merely made reference to your repeated behavior, what it "looks like," and its cumulative effects, vs. "personally attacking" you. On the other hand, if I have inadvertently actually personally attacked you or your underlying character, I apologize. That's not what this is about. It's about how difficult it is to work on pages with you.

Bad faith? Your pattern of ongoingly prefacing your reverts with "warnings" to block me, from the start of our interactions and over time, comes off as a bad-faith approach to editing these pages, and inspires a feeling of being threatened. You are using such warnings inappropriately, with me and with others. Yes, (referring to recent comments of yours on our dispute elsewhere), I do know the difference between a warning and a threat, and I also know how one can ride that fine line. You do it beautifully. I loved the one where you begrudgingly accepted my album graphics after initially reverting them, after I wrote a long "common sense" defense of their source. Then you said something that amounted to "just don't do it again." Behavior not unlike what one who enjoys impersonating a policeman might do. Kudos. Sojambi Pinola (talk) 06:31, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sojambi. You've done your research. You've teared your hair out. You've read my userpage. You're entirely correct in principle. There are intractable characters on Wikipedia, some whose attitudes are entirely antithetical to a collaborative environment. You have a reasonable expectation that, because Wikipedia has policies, procedures and administration directed to these things, that they will sanction and control those who violate those policies. As you've read, in many cases, for many different reasons, they don't. Unfortunately, it appears you primarily edit Wikipedia articles centred around an interest you share with Isento. So, you have four options: edit an area of Wikipedia Isento doesn't edit, keep trying to edit musical articles with Isento being hostile and reverting all your edits, quit editing Wikipedia, or report him to WP:AN/I. As you know, reporting him to the noticeboard is unlikely to end in a satisfactory result for you. If you do report him, however, be concise, use diffs and DO NOT RESPOND TO THE PERSON YOU ARE REPORTING. Whatever you do, take some time for yourself away from this whole situation. There are good times and fruitful pursuits, and it'll be nice to forget that people like this exist and that they can drag you into disputes like this.

Oh, and if you do report him to ANI, use the diff with him "expressing concern" for your mental health. That was disgusting.

All the best, Cjhard (talk) 09:42, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Much appreciated. I'm taking your advice. Sojambi Pinola (talk) 17:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm disappointed in the both of you for questioning my sincerity; you really are underestimating the capacity for patience, communication and cool needed to work with this person and help teach them when they are stubbornly refusing to admit fault or listen or taper their emotions for the sake of productivity -- go look back to the edit histories and talk page discussions. I even tried to compromise with them on their ridiculous enforcement of a chronology navigating album releases by date(s) of recording, which was rightfully opposed by seasoned competent editors at the article talk page. I stand by issuing the editor a warning for doing what they had been warned and lectured on for months not to do. The both of you -- @Cjhard: -- are delusional if you don't see anything worrisome or erratic when someone says "I'm doing nothing wrong. I'm onto you, and I'm ready for you. You are no wiki-hero" in one moment, then "My edits have been imperfect, and I am learning" in another. Sojambi's behavior demonstrates a lack of personal accountability, disregard for standards of source reliability, disregard for source integrity, victim playing, and textbook hostility. isento (talk) 18:47, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nah. Sojambi Pinola (talk) 02:34, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This same person has costantly trolled me on my changes to the articles about Led Zeppelin's "Coda" album, and hard rock. Like only they may decide what those pages say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:CB03:8D00:996B:2879:2F15:79AC (talk) 05:03, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Crossing Delancey (soundtrack) concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Crossing Delancey (soundtrack), a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wrestling

I think I have encountered difficulties similar to yours. I've written about this on my Talk page and User page. Click my name. I posted a message today on Wikiproject Jazz called "And others" if you are interested. Vmavanti (talk) 15:28, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, we sure have. I have taken a breather for the sake of my sanity. But I've followed your travails with interest in the past. I look forward to collaborating with you in the future. Sojambi Pinola (talk) 18:26, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Crossing Delancey (soundtrack)

Hello, Sojambi Pinola. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Crossing Delancey".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Bkissin (talk) 16:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. Sojambi Pinola (talk) 18:24, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Thelonious (1953 Prestige 10" mini-LP) concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Thelonious (1953 Prestige 10" mini-LP), a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:33, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Thelonious Monk Quintet Blows For LP (1954 Prestige 10" mini-LP) concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Thelonious Monk Quintet Blows For LP (1954 Prestige 10" mini-LP), a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:40, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:"Crossing Delancey" Original Motion Picture Soundtrack album cover.jpg

The file File:"Crossing Delancey" Original Motion Picture Soundtrack album cover.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-free album cover being used in a decorative manner in Crossing Delancey#Soundtrack. Non-free album cover art is generally allowed to be used for primary identification purposes in stand-alone articles about albums, but its use in other articles is generally only allowed when the cover art itself is the subject of sourced critical commentary as explained in WP:NFC#cite_note-3 and the context for non-free use required by WP:NFCC#8 is evident. There is no such commentary for this particular album cover anywhere in the article, and the use of soundtrack album cover art in articles about films or TV programs is generally not allowed for this reason as explained in WP:FILMSCORE and MOS:TVPRODUCTION.

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 files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Roches are a major musical group. I had created a separate album page for their soundtrack album, which debuted some music later developed for their next proper album. For reasons unclear, it was deleted. (Something about the album being trivial.) Rather than fight this any further, I moved the contents to a subsection of the movie page.

In general on Wikipedia, album art is fair use when discussing an album.

please advise.

Sojambi Pinola (talk) 16:46, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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) 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:LP 5002 Monk.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:LP 5002 Monk.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:26, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:LP 5011 Jackson.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:LP 5011 Jackson.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:32, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]