Van helsing

Sorry to bother you, but I saw you removed two external link on this page, and I'd like to understand better why. The first one is the reference to http://www.fountainpennetwork.com that's a very useful source of information, with photos, reviews and so on about fountain pen (provided by the forum users). The site can be consulted also without the (free) registration, so I don't think you can appply the Sites requiring registration rule.

It contains a lot of useful information, much more of what you can find in other cited sites that have also strong commercial interests like http://www.richardink.com/ and http://www.stylophilesonline.com/. To be clear, my question is about where you put the threshold for your judgement, because in my opinion there is no reason for the above to be there if http://www.fountainpennetwork.com is removed. So I advocate for the reinclusion of http://www.fountainpennetwork.com or the removal of the other ones.

The second external link (http://www.fountainpen.it) concern me directly, so I do not advocate anything about it, but I'd like to understand better the reasons for which it cannot be linked as an external sources. The link was put by me because I thinked that it is on the topic and contains valid informations, like many other that where there when I put the link. Obiouvsly I'm biased, but I still hope that the quality is enough you do not consider this a link spamming, it was not.

In any case I apologize for my poor english and the little knoweledge of wikipedia rules that should have caused troubles (I'm not sure I undestood well how to do with this talk page...).

S.piccardi (talk) 14:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your message and sorry for responding so late to it, was away for a while. You are referring to this edit of mine. I removed the fountainpennetwork.com external link (not a reference by the way) because it is a discussion forum, which is normally among the links to be avoided (see WP:ELNO point 10).

I removed the fountainpen.it link because it’s a wiki (see WP:ELNO point 12), it’s also written in Italian, which reduces its usefulness for the readership on an English language wikipedia somewhat. As you are kind enough to reveal your interest in this particular link, I would like to encourage you to add the knowledge you have on the article subject to the article itself, instead of the external link. Alternatively, you could discuss the inclusion of the link on the article talk page.

In my opinion you are absolutely right that more EL’s are eligible for removal from the article, I however don’t think it’s the right reason to re-include the above two links again (see this). My "treshold" for inclusion is largely based on what is described in WP:EL, WP:SPAM and WP:COI, which basically explain the past agreed upon consensus in these situations.

As a side note, your English is fine, and your use of the talk page is exactly what it is intended to be used for. Hope to have answered your question adequately. --Van helsing (talk) 11:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

From what I can tell, only one of the subpages is transcluded to more than one page, so I restored that subpage. The other subpages I simply copied the contents of and substituted them directly into the user page. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Effectively done, thanks. --Van helsing (talk) 09:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I see you have removed all of the links I just added. Did you visit the link or are you just on removal autopilot? The link in question is the best guide to the federal budget I have seen and entirely relevant to the entires I placed it. I use the link in my classroom when dealing with the federal budget. I thought it would be appropriate on wikipedia, and it certainly is. On some of the entries I was updating the URL of a link that had been there for years. You removed it entirely. Do you have any authority of federal budget related information, or is this just knee-jerk reaction?

-mibs —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mibs (talk • contribs) 14:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please read your own talk page, WP:EL, WP:SPAM and possible WP:COI as well, to get an idea on what articles and external links are generally considered appropriate. Inserting these “wallstats” & “thebudgetgraph” external links seems to be the only thing you have been doing around here, could you please instead add some content to articles? The usefulness of these links is severely limited due to the used interface and the use of the big, multiple “Buy this poster now” and PayPal links makes the commercial nature of this website pretty clear. --Van helsing (talk) 14:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ah ok, so the best resource for us Social Studies teachers involving the federal budget and government should not be linked in precisely appropriate articles because the information on the website, which is available for free is also available in hard copy for sale. The usefulness of wikipedia seems severely limited because of this. If there was ever an example of highly relevant information which for whatever reason could not be available on the wiki page (being too large) then this would be the case. My students who use the poster understand immediately the scale and scope of the federal government; something wikipedia cannot offer. Full disclosure, I do own and use the poster, and am an advocate of government transparency and accountability, perhaps this is WP:COI to you. Either way, I found a great resource that would complement wikipedia's mundane pie graphs, I suppose it is up to you whether it is appropriate. You'll probably get a barnstar for it. Mibs (talk) 18:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)mibsReply

Thank you for fixing that insane edit just now. Mark Borgschulte (talk) 18:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I’m not entirely sure if everything SturmTiger42 (talk · contribs) wrote is unsupported by references, though I’ll have to note I don’t thing he/she added any. As you are a student in economics, could you maybe go through his/her contributions, including the Dollar and Austrian School articles? That would be greatly appreciated. --Van helsing (talk) 18:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Mmhhh... Amsterdam (Scotland)? :-) --Van helsing (talk) 22:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

It is not particularly helpful if you just hack stuff out and don't bother to replace it with the formula produced in the right way. You obviously know there is a way since you gave a link to it. It's no big deal since the formula ought to be common knowledge, but what is the value in leaving even a minor hole in an article. What happens when you do something like that and nobody notices? P0M (talk) 13:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Err... what hole are you talking about? I’m not going to replace Hellboy2hell’s image insertion with <math> because I don’t consider it to be an improvement to the article. [1][2][3][4] --Van helsing (talk) 13:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Regarding your retraction of a link at Greece article (09:25, 19 August 2008 Van helsing ((rm WP:EL per WP:ELNO))

As i told before when El Greco revised the link too i found a website related with Greece typing GR at MSN. It was useful for me especially when i tried to search Greek forums

I saw El Greco's note and to be honest i didn't understand it I decided to resubmit because i thought it was a mistake from his part and because i saw many more useless links,pages full of banners and outdated/not valid information.

Even now with your link reference to wiki rules i fail to see where was the problem and the reason of this removal

However with your link removal which was the 2nd to my link contribution i think i have to pass and stop Two old editors may have better knowledge of wikipedia rules. For me the site you removed was extremely helpful to find queries about Greek sites and Greece, that's why i wanted to share it.

I don't want to "spoil" my wikipedia contribution records with retractions and link removals anymore I think it was better as a simple user and not as an editor to visit wikipedia again

I didn't know there was a hidden war behind the scenes of a helpful site like this one

Wikifan02 (talk) 20:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

I’m sorry Wikifan02, the external link (diff) may have been useful for you, but that does not mean it is a useful link for the readership of an English encyclopedic article about the country Greece. What additional information does a customized Google link, with emphasis on Greek language results/forums/E-shops, give to an English encyclopedic article about Greece? Nothing I’m afraid.

Please re-read WP:EL, specifically:

• WP:ELNO point 9 and 13
• WP:EL#Non-English language content
• WP:EL#Linking to YouTube, Google Video, and similar sites (Sorry, that’s not relevant.--Van helsing (talk) 11:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC))Reply

--Van helsing (talk) 14:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the catch of the serious POV issues on the Dow Chemical page. Some people seem to have a need to infect the Dow page with excessive rantings when those rantings are well covered in other articles which are often linked on the Dow page. No one seems quite as willing (nor should they, I would argue) to write about all the good things the company has done. I support the reverts.Plhofmei (talk) 21:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Glad to help, I guess everybody has their little WP:COIs and WP:POVs, but that edit crosses the line, at least it has to be discussed before inclusion. Do you know the website [http://www.thetruthaboutdow.org] ? I didn’t; reminds me of gripe sites like royaldutchshellplc.com and [http://shellnews.net] with respect to Shell. Could be that [http://www.thetruthaboutdow.org] is going to spawn a Johnadonovan (talk · contribs) (owner of those Shell gripe sites) for the DOW article. Let’s keep an eye on it. --Van helsing (talk) 07:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please take a look at Template talk:Sort#Negative_number_fix_for_template:nts. -- Tcncv (talk) 06:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for responding so late. I see Partick already responded to your query. It’s been a while since I worked on this kind of template coding, so his comments are probably more useful than mine. If you want to implement it (I see Template:Nts is currently protected) maybe you should propose your negative number fix to a wider audience, WP:VPT perhaps. Thanks for working on that particular problem. --Van helsing (talk) 07:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

An article that you have been involved in editing, Nikhil Kothari, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nikhil Kothari. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Chirag (talk) 19:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

It has come to my attention that you have deleted my entry on an admission concerning Lady Thatcher being invited to Chequers by the Labour PM Gordon Brown. I believe this is significant and deserves to be included in the article as it has particular political and current significance, especially what with the economic crisis and Lady Thatcher having solved Britain's crisis in the late '70s - early '80s (maybe Brown has got in Baroness Thatcher to consult her on strategy). Anyway, I believe this should be reinstated and I shall do so if you do not provide any compelling reasons for me not to. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PoliceChief (talk • contribs)

Please read the link I provided in the edit summary (WP:RECENT), and after reading that, please revaluate your intention to reinstate the section, thanks. --Van helsing (talk) 17:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Why did you do a second revert to the page Extended periodic table today back to a version a month old? IMO the article was best after your first revert (to the version of Heshy613).--Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, you’re right. I now notice that Habbit (talk · contribs) moved some groups (and Helium) back in 2004, moving away from how Fonzy (talk · contribs) started the article ^[5] which was quite similar to what I presume to be the real Extended Periodic Table how Seaborg suggested it. ^[6] Self reverted my second rv; table and reference are still different though as you quite accurately state here. --Van helsing (talk) 20:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. However, the chinese(?) user has moved helium to the left again.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Dear Van helsing, I would like to know the reason for you altering the spelling of William's surname? As a descendant of Williams, i can ashore you that the correct spelling of the name is Bradbery, & not Bradbury as you have altered it to. I have evidence in both document form & photo evidence to prove this, unfortunately being only a very new novice to Wiki, i have been unable to download any pictures or documents so far, but when i have the means to do so i would like to insert them alongside my ancestors article. also please could you advise me how to alter the main header on William's page, as i don't seem able to gain access to edit this particular part.

Westhydeian (talk) 19:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)westhydeianWesthydeian (talk) 19:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Apologies for the name change. I did that because several websites keep calling your forebear Bradbury. [7][8][9] I take however your word for it that Bradbery is the correct spelling, strengthened by looking at the image you recently uploaded (which I have put in the article for you).

I take it that you mean with "main header" the actual article name; you can change that by moving a page. However, editors cannot do that when the destination page already exists, and isn't just a redirect to the old title (administrators can though).

I have requested to move William Bradbury (horticulturist) back to William Bradbery. If you need more help, feel free to ask. --Van helsing (talk) 09:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you so much for returning the surname back to how it should read. Sorry about that, but it's been a bug bear for us for century's. It was also a constant problem for William, which is why i get so passionate about it. Also thank you for the help with the pictures, i haven't quite got the hang of it yet. All the best. westyhdeian —Preceding unsigned comment added by Westhydeian (talk • contribs) 10:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello again, I would value your oppinion about an artical i would like to put on Wiki. My wife's grandfather, won during WW1, three Military medals for valor, & got a citaition in the London Gazette in 1918 & 1919. He was only 19 himself at the time. Would this be a suitable subject to put on Wiki? Regards, Westhydeian (talk) 20:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)WesthydeianReply

I find that a bit difficult to judge to be honest, but I fear it would be considered "borderline". These essay’s/guidelines good help you further though:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Style guide#Notability, which leads to the questions:
  • Are the military medals among the country's highest military decorations?
  • Is your wife's grandfather the primary topic in the London Gazette citation?
• Wikipedia:Notability (people)

If you would like more input on this question, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history is probably a good place to ask further. --Van helsing (talk) 09:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello - I see that you were involved in the two graphs for the universal joint article. I have written a more detailed analysis, but the graphs need to be shifted a bit. I have created the shifted graphs from the originals, but now I wonder if I should upload them under a new name or can I upload them as a modification of the originals? I'm not sure how to go about uploading them as a modification of the originals. Thanks for any help PAR (talk) 22:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think using new names like you did here and here is probably the best, since the old ones are still used on it, pt and no. Overwriting the old images would change the charts on the other language wikis to.

Quite clever image editing by the way, however, did I really do it wrong the first time? Because, you didn’t seem to have changed the equations much. --Van helsing (talk) 12:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Good. As for the plots, you did it correctly the first time, it matched the equations that were written down. Its just that the angular displacement is measured from some reference angle, and the equations will change phase depending on the reference angle. I thought it would be good to use the reference angles specified in the Euler angles article, which gave a quick reference and an easy picture to draw. This altered the equation, which meant the plots needed to be shifted. PAR (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Why did you remove the notice to the only corporation which manufactures an electrical linear alternator? This is not to understand since this is one of the most important part or the entire article. Please explain or I will allow myself to undo your revert.--Wolfhart Willimczik - Physicist & Inventor 18:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC) --Wolfhart Willimczik - Physicist & Inventor 16:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inventor (talk • contribs)

Your destruction of the article vane pump
Why did you erase the main parts from this article?--Wolfhart Willimczik - Physicist & Inventor 18:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

War or peace?
I see you sabotaged my contributions to Wikipedia already in the past. (Axial piston pump.) What are the reasons?

Are you an exceptional engineer that you know that much more than everybody else.? First you claim my inventions are not accepted by the industry. This is not true. They are not only accepted but also manufactured!

Than you claim the manufacturer Pempek has never proved to you, that the linear free piston generator is running. Please give your address that I can eventually arrange that this people show you their free piston generator with 100KW personally.

I f you don’t take this offer please stay away from my writings for Wikipedia. There are sufficient other users to watch over me. --Wolfhart Willimczik - Physicist & Inventor 13:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inventor (talk • contribs)

I’m sorry Mr. Willimczik, I find it commendable that you try to come up with new technical ideas and innovations, but Wikipedia is not the place to publish about them yourself. I have until now not seen any reliable, third-party published sources for your article additions since you came here. Your contributions involve only your own products/ideas (WP:COI), and when you reference any claim or feature about them, it’s only done by self-published sources. You have enough previous wiki experience to know that these contributions are not encouraged. --Van helsing (talk) 12:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Your allegations are wrong, but nevertheless I will add more “reliable sources” to satisfy you – even if you are the only one in Wikipedia who needs it - and you stop stalking me and erasing all my writings.

You should read more, for instance "fluid", "world pumps" etc. and you find it, what you are looking for. But if you have absolute no knowledge in this field please stay away from it.

Your actions are unethical and violate the basics of a free Wikipedia. (You forgot to give me your address.) --Wolfhart Willimczik - Physicist & Inventor 15:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Please read the links I provided to you above; Wikipedia:Verifiability is a policy, so it’s hardly only me who wants to see reliable, third-party published sources.

I further do not believe:

• ...that I’m stalking you
• ...that you are able to assess my knowledge in this field, or that it is relevant here
• ...that my actions are unethical or a violation of Wikipedia policies
• ...that it would be wise to give you my address

Please add any sources you have to the articles, not to me or my address.

--Van helsing (talk) 15:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

How can it be that you are the only one who erased delibertly all my work? You destroy good things for mankind since a long time. There your destructive work from one day only:

Your "contibutions" are only erasings:

13:11, 10 November 2008 (hist) (diff) Rand cam engine ‎ (Rm unreferenced user self-promotion) (top)

13:10, 10 November 2008 (hist) (diff) Axial piston pump ‎ (Rm unreferenced user self-promotion) (top)

13:08, 10 November 2008 (hist) (diff) Rotary vane pump ‎ (Rm unreferenced user self-promotion) (top)

13:05, 10 November 2008 (hist) (diff) Two-stroke engine ‎ (Rm unreferenced user self-promotion) (top)

13:04, 10 November 2008 (hist) (diff) Pump ‎ (appropriate commons cat) (top)

By dictating your "believes" to other users you violate the rules of Wikipedia. This is not "your" Wikipedia. You should be ashamed. If not I will help you and put your name on the "Wall of shame" --Wolfhart Willimczik - Physicist & Inventor 18:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• User:Inventor asked me to review this matter and I've replied on his talk page. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
  • Thanks for taking the time Will.--Van helsing (talk) 08:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Neither of the two Wikipedia rules you cite when reverting should apply to this case. First, 'Wikipedia is not a dictionary'. True. But then the quote I added was no more of a definition than the existing article. It improved the latter by adducing cultural scholarship on travel. Cultural history contests the identification of 'travel' with 'movement', as the article currently does. As for notability, the subject is hugely important, both commercially, sociologically and intellectually. The scholar is also notable, writing for numerous learned journals in the field. For all these reasons i'm reverting your edit. But feel free to discuss here.86.139.108.172 (talk) 20:16, 28 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Shall we take this topic to the article talk page? Thanks. --Van helsing (talk) 21:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

That's fine. I've begun a debate there with Arsennik. Happy to continue there.86.139.108.172 (talk) 21:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Glad to hear that; please be aware that there exists something called the three-revert rule. You didn’t cross it yet, but discussion is indeed the preferred method to solve issues like these. --Van helsing (talk) 22:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. You'd be welcome to contribute to the discussion. I assure you my edits are not whimsical but based on a knowledge of scholarly literature (& I just present current ideas, so no 'original research')86.139.108.172 (talk) 08:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi Can I ask why you removed the correctly cited reference to a book on the South West Coast Path further reading section? You gave an edit summary of "rm Cicerone spam" but I can't see why details of a book which could be bought from a variety of suppliers should be considered spam over any other reference to a book?— Rod ^talk 13:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

It is published by Cicerone which is located at 2 Police Square, Cumbria. User 2policesquare (talk · contribs) (see the resemblance between the publisher’s address and the username) has done nothing else than adding books in "Further reading" sections of this publisher, with what I expect to be the purpose of selling more books of this publisher. I think that is considered WP:SPAM. --Van helsing (talk) 13:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

I see what you mean, however I also note another editor has reverted your edit at South West Coast Path.— Rod ^talk 15:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have absolutely no problem with that. If someone who is not associated with Cicerone knows about a book and believes it should be mentioned in an article, my reason for removing it (the spam concern) is gone. --Van helsing (talk) 15:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

could you please verify the license with the the concerned lab.User:Yousaf465

According to the source it’s a picture credited to the National Nuclear Security Administration. The NNSA is a separately organized agency within the United States Department of Energy; not a DOE sponsored lab which sometimes retain copyrights. Thus, DOE’s policies on Copyright, Restrictions, and Permissions apply. --Van helsing (talk) 13:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I noticed you did this rollback of what seems to be a substantially correct contribution. Per Wikipedia:ROLLBACK#When not to use rollback, rollback should not have been used in this situation, and an explanation for the reversion should have been offered. Perhaps you can answer this question better than I can. --Dynaflow babble 04:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Darn, you’re right, I shouldn’t have reverted that, especially not with rollback. The fact that Cholmondeley-Smythe is actually wondering why his edits are being reverted makes it even more irksome. In hindsight though, it would be good to have the more forceful description of Fortuyn, and the assumption that Fortuyn's support went to Wilders, referenced. I largely agree to Spinningspark’s response on that one. --Van helsing (talk) 13:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

No problem! Were you following the Talk:Europe discussion, and is that how you landed on my page?--Npovshark (talk) 11:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Also yes, was actually reading several pages at the same time and suddenly "Action completed" appeared on one of them. Tried blame something else, didn’t work, was probably me clicking away a bit too carelessly. --Van helsing (talk) 12:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi, you've recently mentioned in an edit summary for a revert to The Netherlands that the IP responsible for the edit might be a sockpuppet related to user:Historian19. Further recent edits from several IP's located in Morocco continue to make the same edits (41.249.xxx.xxx, 41.140.xxx.xxx and 41.248.xxx.xxx). What is the proper procedure to report those IP's as possible sockpuppets? Jarkeld (talk) 23:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ditto, and by the way, that's one scary looking User Page. RashersTierney (talk) 23:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for the very late response guys, but I guess this page would have been useful back then. Today, User:Future Perfect at Sunrise suggested to be contacted directly in H19 cases for faster response. --Van helsing (talk) 10:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

You created the history section for Universal joint and credited Henry Ford with coining the term universal joint on 28 Aug 2006, with no sources. An anonymous contributor corrected this, providing a counterexample to show that Ford did not coin the term on 19 Apr 2008. I cannot find any source that predates 2006 and gives Ford credit. All the sources I've found are likely to have been influenced by this error in Wikipedia. If you can find an older source for this misattribution, please cite it in the History section. Otherwise, there is no reason to even mention Henry Ford here. Douglas W. Jones (talk) 20:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Answered on the article talk page. --Van helsing (talk) 15:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Inviting your consideration of my argument against capitalization of 'southern hemisphere' here. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 01:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

A tag has been placed on Cooley Distillery, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Terrillja _talk 16:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

(approximative english, I'm french) Big thanks for your wonderfull work. If some day you find time, please made the flames move. Thanks again. Blogbreather (talk) 21:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

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) 13:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply