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) 00:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Assault Weapons Ban page

Thanks for detailing your edits with good and explanatory edit summaries and making each smaller and easier to follow.

Just wanted to thank you for that here, so as not to clutter the discussion at the Talk:Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban#Citation_needed section. ---Avatar317(talk) 18:38, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Avatar317 for taking the time to review my edits! Keep up the good work. ((u|Gtoffoletto))  talk 18:43, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Depp v Heard recent edit

The section I edited is called (Closing Arguments) and it already includes several qoutes from all their lawyers made during the closing arguments. How can it be inappropriate for me to add more qoutes from the already cited sources, qoutes that were said during the closing arguments, to the (closing arguments) section? I dont understand. And what was the problem with my edit to the (Comments by juror) section, u deleted that too. RSH7 (talk) 01:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey RSH7! Let’s keep such discussions on the article’s talk page so others can participate. ((u|Gtoffoletto))  talk 07:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A heads-up

Hello Gtoffoletto, just to let you know, I've removed [1] some stuff you added to Depp v. Heard in July 2022 [2] and April 2023 [3].

I'll explain the latter first, it is plainly obvious that Lisa Bloom does not understand the verdict, if anyone were to properly read and understand the lede of Depp v. Heard, one would see that there is no contradiction: jury says it was false that Heard roughed up penthouse as part of hoax, and jury says it was false that Depp perpetuated sexual violence and domestic abuse, different things. There are tons of commentary about this case, we do not need the single worst take in the room. Plus, this is sourced to Vice, and WP:RSP says: There is no consensus on the reliability of Vice Media publications.

Now, the former, on legal commentators criticized..., I'd like to particularly object to the second source (TODAY.com) quoting Heard's lawyer Elaine Bredehoft, while the third source (NPR) quoting both Heard and Elaine Bredehoft. I view the use of these cites to support legal commentators criticized... as extremely careless. As for the first source, it is Vice, and again, There is no consensus on the reliability of Vice Media publications.

So, the Lisa Bloom comment, I'm objecting to it totally. The legal commentators criticized... content, I think if you find a proper reliable source, multiple is better, can be re-added. starship.paint (exalt) 14:55, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. Let's keep article discussions there so others can participate. ((u|Gtoffoletto))  talk 18:34, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rocket family

SpaceX Starship (rocket family).--Please let the discussion know, if that is non-ambiguous title, or desirable title.--For now, i sort of feel that it is a stretch, to call "Super Heavy" and "Starship (spacecraft)" - a "family". However, I have not had my eyes on relevant sources. 2001:2020:32F:ECE9:DDDC:CA43:1CDD:DA72 (talk) 15:48, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

  • adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
  • comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
  • follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
  • comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
  • refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally you are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the ((Ctopics/aware)) template.

KoA (talk) 15:36, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More