User talk:Tgru001

Welcome

Hello Tgru001, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

---

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of contents

Department directory

Need help?

Questions — a guide on where to ask questions. Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes. Wikipedia's 5 pillars — an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

Article wizard — a Wizard to help you create articles The simplified ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules. Guide to Wikipedia — A thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia.

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia — a guide on how you can help.

Community portal — Wikipedia's hub of activity.

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The or button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.

If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

Tgru001, good luck, and have fun. --Aboutmovies (talk) 07:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 2 October

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Gap junction page, your edit caused a duplicate page number error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:27, 3 October 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) 14:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Tgru001. 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, Tgru001. 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]

September 2019

Hello, I'm Jc3s5h. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Calendar reform, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Jc3s5h (talk) 08:04, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for contributing to the article Calendar reform. However, do not use unreliable sources such as blogs, your own website, websites and publications with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight, expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions, as one of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. Thanks! P.S. If you need further help, you can look at Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia, or ask at the Teahouse. Thank you. Almost all Wikimedia Foundation websites, with the possible exception of Wikisource, are unreliable sources because the content is user-contributed without appropriate editorial oversight. Wictionary is one such unreliable source. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:59, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I have explained to you already, while I have no problems citing scientific literature I'm still learning the ropes of citations from none scientific sources. Some patience with correction of my technical mistakes in order to show by example what it should look like rather than your only approach so far of complaining and reversing all edits quoting a technical reason, sometimes invalid, would be more constructive.

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding reason for discussion. The thread is User Tgru001 criticizes source in bad faith. The discussion is about the topic Calendar reform. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:20, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Pharisees and the Sadducees

You will note that in his response to you AstroLynx makes many allegations but fails to provide any evidence to support them. 94.0.175.75 says that the "long-term abuse" allegations are fictitious and AstroLynx has provided no evidence to the contrary. The ANI discussion will archive (unless anyone posts further) after 07:19 New Zealand time Tuesday, 8 October. Before it does, you can protect yourself by pointing out that you are being bullied by unscrupulous people. The administrator AstroLynx refers to, Future Perfect at Sunrise, works hand in glove with them. Well-known in the community, he has been the subject of more complaints to AN, ANI and ArbCom than anyone else and has been de-sysopped as a result (the word "de-sysopped" means "unfrocked"). He is the one who made the claim 94.0.175.75 refers to in the final sentence of his/her comment at Talk:Calendar reform. If we're pursuing analogies, the name Judas Iscariot would be appropriate. Take care and all the best. 77.101.226.208 (talk) 15:56, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Tgru001! You created a thread called How to cite, quote or whatever word definitions from a reputable source? at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bartholomew Gutierrez (October 31)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Willsome429 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:Bartholomew Gutierrez 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:Bartholomew Gutierrez, 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.

Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 13:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tgru001! 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! Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 13:30, 31 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) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bartholomew Gutierrez (February 17)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Sulfurboy was:  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:Bartholomew Gutierrez 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:Bartholomew Gutierrez, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" 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.

Sulfurboy (talk) 03:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Bartholomew Gutierrez concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Bartholomew Gutierrez, 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, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bartholomew Gutierrez has been accepted

Bartholomew Gutierrez, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

DGG ( talk ) 10:10, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Vinnexin has been accepted

Vinnexin, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Theroadislong (talk) 06:49, 29 July 2021 (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) 00:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributed article, Intercellular Communication

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Intercellular Communication. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Cell signaling. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Cell signaling. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 22:32, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Gap junction

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Gap junction, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "missing periodical" error. References show this error when the name of the magazine or journal is not given. Please edit the article to add the name of the magazine/journal to the reference, or use a different citation template. (Fix | Ask for help)
• A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 04:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Accommodation (vertebrate eye), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Iris. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Hi Tgru001! Thank you for your edits to Accommodation (vertebrate eye). It looks like you've copied or moved text from Lens (vertebrate anatomy) into that page, and while you are welcome to re-use the content, Wikipedia's licensing requires that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. If you've copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thanks! DanCherek (talk) 14:25, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dan,

thanks for your info. I hadn't realized that reusing content within Wikipedia required acknowledgement as it was all internally recorded anyway. In this case all the content I moved was written by myself so I'm not going to upset the author. So far over the years I haven't copied anyone else's work so there is no one else I might have upset either. My intention was to see if the content was acceptable on the new page that is more relevant to the content, and if it was, remove much of it from the original page where it is less related to the article and refer it to the more appropriate page instead. It's only been on the new page for a day or two so I'll wait a bit longer before removing the content from the old page.

The attribution process you outline sounds complicated if done after the copying is already complete. As it all relates only to text generated my myself hopefully its OK not to acknowledge the copying in the exact way required this time and try and remember to do it next time.

Cheers,

Terry Tgru001 (talk) 21:24, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Some of the text you copied (e.g., In the simplest vertebrates [...] pushes the lens backwards. as well as the preceding paragraph) was originally contributed by another editor in 2009 (see this diff by Anaxial for example). That's why it's typically easier just to provide the attribution rather than keep track of all that in order to satisfy attribution requirements. In this instance, I've already gone ahead and added the attribution in a subsequent edit summary (see here) so it really is quite simple to go back and do it if you forget. DanCherek (talk) 22:15, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand attribution is important for Wikipedia as a principal and the work of some people contributing to Wikipedia focus on maintaining these principles. Whether the text you ascribe to Anaxial for example actually was written by them, or whether it was just "tweak copied" from a text book doesn't concern me otherwise I'd have become a lawyer. I'll avoid using the copy/paste function in future as additional procedures tend to slow my work. By you making sure my copy/paste is ascribed to him means I can't be sued so thanks.

However, in practice, I don't think it is right to attribute smaller copy and pastes to the previous authors. For example, with the accommodation article in question, descriptions of the more controversial theories of how land based vertebrates focus appear twice in the same section. Once under a general heading of vertebrate lens theories "External forces" and one a subset of that under "Theories on how humans focus". In the case of the human subset it is someone else's description that seemed to ignore all other mammals and the interior forces in lenses altogether. I could have copy and pasted their description of the theories to the section I wrote but mostly rewrote them anyway. I may have copied sentences from the original but don't recall doing so. Even if I had, in the new context the possibly "copied" sentences regarding lenses gain different meanings so I would be wrong to attribute these sentences to others who may not have intended them to have these new meanings. For example, the person writing the older description may believe the theories only apply to humans and so should not be used with other animals. Or they may believe internal forces in the lens do not contribute to the focusing of the eye and so the external theories they describe should not be included with them. I was tempted to delete the original attempt at describing the "human" theories in the article but in the context they are in they do take on a different meaning so I decided not to. In the "Talk" for the article I suggested a new article on human accommodation be established and the information be moved to there.

I'm starting to introduce more and more illustrations. Most, though not all images used by me, I've drawn and uploaded to Wikimedia myself, mainly for eye lens anatomy. For those I haven't uploaded, even though the same pictures can mean entirely different things in different contexts, I presume linking back to the image file in Wikimedia is sufficient. I haven't necessarily been referencing them back to the article I first saw them in, and I often completely change the caption of the image when it appears in the article I am editing so that it fits the text. If these practices also violate procedures let me know and I'll limit images only to those I generate myself. Tgru001 (talk) 03:28, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am simply pointing out that your original statement that all the content I moved was written by myself was not correct. Thank you for committing to following the attribution guidelines in the future, as this is required by the terms of the Creative Commons license and Wikipedia's terms of use. It takes only a couple seconds to write "moved from [article]" in the edit summary prior to hitting Publish. DanCherek (talk) 12:22, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My statement all the content I moved was written by myself" may be incorrect in your mind as you have shifted it's context from my original placement to the context of attribution rules. In my mind it still portrays the meaning I intended correctly when I used the sentence, especially since the intent behind the statement is known only by me, not you. I believe you are attributing meaning to my statement that wasn't intended by changing it's context. Sound familiar? Stop doing false attributions? Tgru001 (talk) 21:03, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Freeze-fracture has been accepted

Freeze-fracture, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:15, 13 November 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) 00:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:10, 2 May 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) 00:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]