User talk:Thisisnotcam/Archive 1

Sabrina Buljubašić

I fixed up the page, sorry for not doing it in the beginning! --PeppermintSA (talk) 18:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

PE fans

I'm using the 2013-2014 version as the model to edit 2015-2016 season. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PE fans (talk • contribs) 03:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

• Okay, no worries! Thanks for letting me know + sorry for getting in your way. PE fans. ɯɐɔ (talk) 18:18, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Jane Austen copy edit

Hi Cam. Thanks for undertaking to copy edit Jane Austen on behalf of the GOCE. It was very nice of you to ask permission first, but you don't really need to do so -- just go ahead. As you are fairly new here I hope you won't mind me, on behalf of GOCE, mentioning one or two things you may need to know: that article is in British English and BEng spelling should be used. We don't override prior choices about such things as date formats and the use or non-use of Harvard commas. That article has already been through and passed the Good Article review process, and as such, the level of consensus for its content is reasonably high. Simple copy editing to correct spelling and grammar and to improve the flow of the prose is great, but significant changes to content or viewpoint, or significant restructuring, are best suggested on the talk page first. It's best done on the article talk page, and I've advised the editor who suggested going to their talk page not to ask for that. If you keep to the article talk page, the other page watchers will see the discussion and consensus should form faster and more reliably. I hope this will help you, and good luck! --Stfg (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the barnstar

Thank you so much for the barnstar! And believe me, I know the struggle when others beat you to the revert. :)

Cheers, Eric-Wester (talk) 05:45, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Alessandro Sperduti speedys

Hi, I declined your speedy deletion on this article because none of the criteria where met. He is a real actor, he is easily identifiable, the article asserts importance by saying he was in a notable TV show, and it is clear that he was not made up. Speedy deletion work and NPP are important, and this article needs major cleanup, but please be careful about hasty tagging. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Rollback granted

Hi Thisisnotcam. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Widr (talk) 00:37, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Jrppezza

Hi, I see you recently issued Jrppezza (talk · contribs) with three warnings. The user added new images to the articles, which seem to be properly licenced. I can't see how this constituted disruptive editing, unless I'm missing something? Mattythewhite (talk) 00:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey hi howdy! From my perspective, it seemed like their edits were disruptive -- the images added were resized quite a bit and were removed from proper format. I'm perfectly open to ...taking..back..(if possible?) the warnings, because as you pointed out I may have been mistaken. I was tackling a lot of RC vandalism and might have jumped the gun on their edits.  Self-trout. ɯɐɔ 💬 01:24, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The best and only way to "take back" the warnings is to write an apology at the user talk page. It doesn't have to be long or dramatic; acknowledge the mistake and let them know that they are still welcome in the project. Mz7 (talk) 04:28, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

User:God-Himself

Hello Thisisnotcam, I added the sources you requested, I was actually in the process of doing so when I noticed you had deleted my changes. Please have a look at the sources provided and let me know what part exactly you disagree with and why before you delete, thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by God-Himself (talk • contribs) 23:35, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:41, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Alliance Airlines

Hello Thisisnotcam, I've made some changes as requested and noted my association with Alliance Airlines. Let me know what other changes I can make so its not COI. Anna FA (talk) 03:09, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Mentmore G&CC

Hi Thisisnotcam, thank you for your message regarding the linking of Mentmore Golf and Country Club . Can I ask you a question because I am not sure of the best practice. I am trying to amend the citations that appear on MANY MANY pages of wikipedia, that link to the website that I work for, these links are about to cease to exist, so I am trying to change them. Am I not allowed to do this?? I am not trying to promote ourselves, just amend the pages which are linked to us. Any help would be appreciated. Many thanks. Rachellebaxter (talk) 11 Feb 2017 —Preceding undated comment added 11:37, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Change to Fast Bowling

The criteria for the list was recently changed from 140+mph which is exclusive, few, easy to maintain and how it has been for last 1+ year and continuously maintained, to 135+mph which is enormous and hard to maintain, keep track of. The person who changed the criteria has made no efforts to maintain it himself. It was more a revert of his change. 69.181.193.136 (talk) 23:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

User SpikeEm has expanded the criteria English bowlers without taking care of adding similar bowlers from other countries. He does not seem to have any interest in maintaining the list, he didnt update data of any players since one week back he changed the criteria. Can you please help here? I have been updating this list every 3 days since last one year. Can you please help me become an admin? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.193.136 (talk) 02:22, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

You might want to mention Spike 'em so that they know you're concerned -- have you left a message on their talk page? And a good tip is to make an account, or at least log in to one. I can't make you an admin, and even if I could, I wouldn't, because you're not only not logged in and you don't have an account, but you also only want to become an admin for the purpose of owning an article (WP:NOT). The best tip I can give you right now is to make an account, because you seem to be dedicated enough. Please make sure you sign your posts, too, with four tildes (~~~~). ɯɐɔ 💬 14:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Please be careful when reverting edits

Hello Thisisnotcam,

When you did this edit, your revert reinstated vandalism that had just been removed by a bot known to be quite effective at dealing with vandalism.

In editing, please try to avoid reinstating vandalism, in this process it helps to use the 'Show Preview' button. Since you have been given Rollback permissions, and since a rollback does not offer a preview and since it does not allow you to provide a detailed edit summary, you should be especially careful before performing a rollback. If a rollback is needed for a bot like User:ClueBot NG something is almost surely wrong with the bot, so you may want to alert its maintainer.

Happy editing!

Lklundin (talk) 11:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

hi Cam

you deleted my post and it is really anoyying becuase this was a legit post about a catch phrase that was entered wrong i ma reporting you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mannoli2020 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Update on MADA

Hey there,

Not that I don't like the update to {{template: user decent}}, but is there any way to get rid of the American flag? Gah, that sounded bad, but I dunno. Aesthetics, I suppose.

Cheers, ɯɐɔ 💬 18:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Done. Please see Template:User make decent and User:Ipatrol/Userboxes/Politics by country: R–Z#United States of America. Yours aye,  Buaidh  21:17, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

You're the best. ɯɐɔ 💬 13:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

A3

Re Hero entertainment, "Don't use this tag in the first few minutes after a new article is created". 86.20.193.222 (talk) 02:40, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

huh?

[1] Enigma^msg 05:09, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

aaaaaagh. I hope you can hear my anguished heavy sigh through the screen. I'm a rollbacker, and sometimes ClueBot (damn you ClueBot, putting me out of a job, screwing up my life) beats me to the punch without me being able to see, because I'm in the process of rollbacking. So instead of rollbacking the vandalism as intended, I accidentally (and these are rare occurrences, not every single time, and I can usually catch it) revert the ClueBot version. tldr; ClueBot is faster than this human and while the aformentioned human has great intentions, sometimes there are unintended hiccups. ɯɐɔ 💬 16:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hasty Tagging

Hello Thisisnotcam. Thanks for patrolling new pages – it's a very important task! I'm just letting you know, however, that there is consensus that we shouldn't tag pages as lacking context (CSD A1) and/or content (CSD A3) moments after they are created, as you did at Trendzway Apparels BD Ltd.. It's usually best to wait at least 10–15 minutes for more content to be added if the page is very short, and the articles should not be marked as patrolled. Tagging such pages in a very short space of time may drive away well-meaning contributors, which is not good for Wikipedia. Attack pages (G10), blatant nonsense (G1), copyright violations (G12) and pure vandalism/blatant hoaxes (G3) should of course still be tagged and deleted immediately. Thanks. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi there. I tagged Trendzway Apparels BD Ltd. because the article creator had, just prior to that, created an article with the same name and more unambigously advertising content. There was no question with the first article, which has since been deleted by Widr. The user was also blocked by the same user because of business promotion and evading CSD tags. I know I can be a speedy tagger -- it's distraction from having to pay attention in class, and a productive one -- but I made sure to thoroughly re-re-re-re-re-review WP:CSD prior to tagging. Also, because I'm a mothercluster...

Ouch! You've used a template to send a message to an experienced editor. Please review the essay Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars or maybe listen to a little advice. Doesn't this feel cold, impersonal, and canned? It's meant in good humour. Best wishes. ɯɐɔ 💬 16:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

But no hard feelings. I appreciate you keeping tabs on people. Cheers! ɯɐɔ 💬 16:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Thisisnotcam. It's often a blurred line between who is a "newbie" or "regular" in each particular area of Wikipedia -- thus leaving a template is usually our best course of action. So I apologize that it bothered you, but I'm glad that you've read not to take it personally. In the future, I'll recognize your name. Also -- please know that if you want an administrator to take an action that is outside standard procedure, than leave a note in your edit summary or on the talk page about your reasons. Hints do help. (And we do look for that extra info when making decisions.) Thanks and cheers. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 22:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

about north east regional development group

Why the page is delating North east regional development group Alom h siddiquey 13:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siddiquey (talk • contribs)

A7 and educational institutions

Hi again, just as a note, WP:A7 is very explicit that it does not apply to educational institutions. I have removed the speedy tag you placed on Yenangyaung Degree College. If you feel that it should be deleted, AfD would be the place. I would do WP:BEFORE on it first, though, because while the notability of secondary schools is currently in dispute now, degree granting post-secondary institutions are generally considered to be notable. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't sure, because of that current discussion about notability and secondary schools. That being said, though, I'll make sure to keep it in mind and review over the guidelines (even though I do that a lot, I guess I'm like Dory) again during lunch. Thanks for catching that, though! I appreciate it. ɯɐɔ 💬 16:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

The A7 guidelines are different than notability, it is significance, and even if a school doesn't seem to assert this, it cannot be deleted via A7. Even if it is a local primary school, A7 would not apply (but you generally would be fine going ahead and redirecting it to the school district or municipality without discussion.) TonyBallioni (talk) 16:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Gotcha. So in lieu of A7, would you suggest moving to drafts? Because if a school does assert its notability, but lacks content (like Yenangyaung Degree College), proposing deletion doesn't seem like the best route to take. I patrol the new pages feed (informally? I suppose everything here is informal/not set in stone?), so I just want to make sure I don't make the same mistake again. ɯɐɔ 💬 16:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Moving to drafts should only be done in very rare circumstances, lest it become a form of soft deletion. The article had (minimal) content and was referenced, it was just a stub, which is fine to have in mainspace. If you feel a school isn't notable, the best route is AfD, but do WP:BEFORE first, and like I said, most degree granting institutions aren't affected by the current dispute over schools. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Cubs

That's my point, actually. Drumpfh is Public Enemy of the Chicago Cubs #1 (Sianis and Bartman having been forgiven for their crimes on Nov. 2, 2016, of course.)

Then again, I don't feel that the Curse of the Billy Goat has actually been lifted... Think about it. The Cubs beat the Tigers in 1908. 37 years later, the Curse started against the Tigers. Another 39 years would pass before the Cubs came one game short of ending the World Series appearance drought in 1984... which would've been against the Tigers.

I fully expect the Cubs and Tigers' paths to cross again around 2022 or 2023 based on that pattern, and that is possibly when the Curse will end for good.

tl;dr: Too many Cubs/Tigers connections for the Curse to have been ended against a team other than the Tigers

(P.S.: Brock : Broglio :: Smoltz : Alexander) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.103.93 (talk) 16:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, no. I think you're wrong there. I don't like Trump, and as a Chicago native I love the Cubs, but your opinions about this are irrelevant and not appropriate. Wikipedia isn't a soapbox, it's an encyclopedia, and talking about baseball or politics aren't pertinent. Also -- make sure you sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). ɯɐɔ 💬 16:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

CSD tagging--

It might be better if you familiarize yourself with the CSD criteria. If no tag applies, no CSD criterion applies. Long standing articles are generally not CSD material. If the current version of an article is deficient, it may be that a better iteration can be found in history. Often, it is more productive to try to expand/source/improve articles than tagging for deletion Dlohcierekim 05:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC) OH, almost forgot. CSD is for articles with no sign of significance, a lower standard than notability. An article subject can be unquestionably not notable, but not qualify for CSD. Those are given ProD's. Dlohcierekim 05:11, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi there. What are you referencing? Just so I can have some context here/do a better job at not making the same mistake. I can be a bit of a deletionist sometimes, eep. ɯɐɔ 💬 13:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Re:Welcome!

Dear Thisisnotcam, Thank you for reviewing National Food Chain Safety Office. I tried to improve the article as you indicated. Would you please check it? I have also changed my user name. Thank you, Fsh2017 (talk) 21:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi! It's great! I removed the maintenance tags -- you're good to go. Thanks for helping to improve the encyclopedia! ɯɐɔ 💬 02:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

A reply to your cryptic note on a talk page

Hello. Just got this cryptic note from you. Which article are you referring to? I am unable to locate the the hyperlink problem that prompted your note and I'm not sure what your concern is really about. If there exists a real Wikipedia policy problem, I would like to know the precise problem is so that it can be properly fixed and/or reported. Thanks for your concerns. 68.45.25.137 (talk) 01:03, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

That... is really odd. Sorry about that. Upon further glancing, double-taking, and general "wait, what?"-ing, you might not have been the person I was intending that to be for. I was using Huggle at the time, and might have opened the talk page for the wrong user -- that's my only explanation, at least for the fact that you got it. The cryptic nature of the note, however, is just unexplainable and on my part a biiiit dickish. Again, sorry about that. ɯɐɔ 💬 02:03, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

No problems. I thought it was just an utterly bizarre message meant for some noob doing some really stupid childish spam edit thing that you were force to revert/remove, but I couldn't figure how the message got mis-routed (broken tool???). Although the message was WTF bizarre when it first pop up, the message is now funny after the fact since it is so cryptic outside of its original and now non-existent context. All I can say that stuff happens. 68.45.25.137 (talk) 02:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, they added on a "(and you can read more about it at wikipedia.org/Cisneros if you want)" and I was like 'mmmm honey no' so I'm glad you were able to catch that drift as well. Thanks for understanding! ɯɐɔ 💬 02:59, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

GOCE Requests

Hello Cam:

I notice that you have added "Working" tags to a number of articles on the GOCE Request list. I looked at a couple of them and see that you have not started editing them. I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but the general practice is for editors to select one article at a time and work on it rather than tagging a bunch of them and working on them as time allows. Thanks for your contributions in reducing the backlog.

Cheers

Twofingered Typist (talk) 15:30, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Gotcha. I seem to work better when I have a couple things on my plate; sorry if that's disruptive. I'm actually just about to crack open the two All Time Low album articles, and after I'm done with those, I should be finished. ɯɐɔ 💬 18:22, 25 Ju2017 (UTC)

|}

Nothing Personal (All Time Low album)

You have had a "working" tag for the above article on the Guild of Copy Editors Requests page for over a month. Could you please either complete the copy edit or remove the working tag so that another editor can finish it? Thanks, Tdslk (talk) 22:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about that, and thanks for reminding me! I thought I'd have more time this past month to edit, but college stuff + work + travel has made it actually near-impossible. I removed the tag, just to let you know. Have a good one! ɯɐɔ 💬 03:18, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Life has a way of interfering with Wikipedia. Thanks for removing the tag! Tdslk (talk) 03:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

C/E Template

H3y, would you consider adding a template on the talk page of Resident Evil 7: Biohazard. Per the reason stated on Twofingered Typist's talk page. –Cognissonance (talk) 19:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Dragonheart (band)

Not sure why you added all those tags to Dragonheart (band). The only promotional statement in the stub was a direct quote from a source (albeit translated). Try to be a bit more careful with 'tag bombing', as doing so when inappropriate can really feel WP:BITEy to newbies. This particular article was a pretty decent start compared to most, so it would be a shame to lose the contributor. — CleverPhrase ^InsertHere 20:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. It seemed a bit NPOV to me, and wasn't very wiki-y or specific with things it was citing, claims it was making, et al. I'll keep it in mind, though! Thanks. ɯɐɔ 💬 21:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Branboxla

Just letting you know that I have deleted the blatant spam and blocked the author without any further ado. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:27, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Nathaniel Bryceson

Instead of destroying work, try enhancing it! Tad102 (talk) 23:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Thomas Leinkauf

Dear Thisisnotcam, as the author of this article, I must admit that I was indeed somewhat sloppy concerning my sources. I cannot, however, understand where I am "subjective" and where my article resembles a "news report". Please give some more precise hints on the talk page on what should be done.--Oudeístalk 20:24, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

@Oudeís: Sorry about the "news report" tag -- that was unintentional. That being said, your article is lacking inline citations and has no references, so I highly highly highly recommend that you take care of that! Cheers! ɯɐɔ 💬 20:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

You are very right; I am already doing this. What about this: "wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information" - where do you see problems in this aspect?--Oudeístalk 20:41, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

@Oudeís: When I had first read the article, it seemed more promotional than informational. I made the choice to tag it in poor judgement, I think, because upon second read, it seems to be fine. Sorry about that! ɯɐɔ 💬 20:45, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

OK, no problem. Thanks to you, the article will be full of footnotes in a few minutes. :)--Oudeístalk 20:46, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Starkid articles

The Starkid-related articles all appeared to have no claim to notability, and no sources which covered the subject in any depth and which were independent of the subjects themselves. WP isn't a web-hosting service for aspiring musical thespians, regardless of how sympathetic one might be to their work or aspirations, so asking me whether I have something against musical satire or Harry Potter is misunderstanding what WP is for, and slightly insulting. Pincrete (talk) 21:04, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

@Pincrete: Ahah, wow. The Harry Potter thing was a joke, for one, and I think you may be taking this a touch too seriously (and this is coming from someone who, if you scroll up my talk page, is a deletionist). StarKid is fairly well-known online, not just within the Chicago theater scene but also in the Harry Potter fanbase. I understand where you're coming from with the notability of sources, and that not everything with a cult following is notable, but I'm a little shocked that you don't find these topics notable enough for Wikipedia given howa quick search could establish that. ɯɐɔ 💬 21:25, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Another editor is currently busy doing some merging in response to my prods. I'll let him/her go ahead. I'm less familiar with US 'trade' sources than UK ones, and revisiting the pages, I may have been over-zealous in my nominations, some might just about pass 'notability' criteria. Having said that, having about a dozen articles, a template and a category on productions which (even taken collectively) don't appear to have meaningfully been 'professional' productions, supported by little more than 'mentions' in sometimes questionably independent sources, seems major 'overkill'. As I'm sure you understand, 'notability' isn't anything to do with how good a work might be, nor how many 'views' something might have on Youtube, nor how popular in a particular locale, unless and until someone independent of the work has written in some depth about the work/production company etc. Pincrete (talk) 21:57, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Your draft article, User:Thisisnotcam/sandbox

Hello, Thisisnotcam. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "sandbox".

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 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.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. TKK! bark with me! 23:08, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Thisisnotcam. 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)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Thisisnotcam. 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)

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) 00:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)