User talk:ManicSpider

Welcome!

Hello, ManicSpider, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Hello

DustFormsWords here. Just demonstrating that if people leave a message on your talk page you'll get a big notice on each page letting you know that's happened. Convenient, huh? - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Welcome

Here to help articles tagged for rescue! Articles tagged for deletion and rescue Category Articles tagged for deletion and rescue not found Hi, ManicSpider, welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron! We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying and rescuing articles that have been tagged for deletion. Every day hundreds of articles are deleted, many rightfully so. But many concern notable subjects and are poorly written, which can be fixed and should not be deleted. We try to help these articles quickly improve and address the concerns of why they are proposed for deletion. This covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated! Some points that may be helpful: Our main aim is to help improve articles, so if someone seeks help, please try to assist if you are able. Likewise feel free to ask for help, advice and clarification. Many times we are asked to help rescue articles by people new to our notability and sourcing policies. If the article is not fixable we can help explain why and offer alternatives. Many of these editors are also new to Wikipedia so may see deleting "their" article as "bitey". Encourage civility and maybe even {{welcome}} them if they have only been templated with deletion messages. The Articles for deletion (AfD) discussion is where the concerns regarding each article are brought up and addressed. To be an effective member of the project you need to know how AfD works as well as how to improve articles. Introduction to deletion process gives a good overview and some good advice for newcomers to deletion. Our primary work is improving articles tagged for rescue. On this template you can see a drop-down list of current articles tagged. You can install it on your own page by putting {{ARS/Tagged}}. A more dynamic list with article links and description is on our current articles page. It is highly recommended you watchlist it. If you have another language besides English, please consider adding yourself to the list of translators available. Articles and sources that use non-English languages often need translation for those of us who cannot translate for ourselves. Many important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is recommended that you watchlist it. If you have any questions, feel free to post a question on the talk page. And once again — Welcome! Okip 02:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Okip 02:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Nasrullah Khan

On February 27, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nasrullah Khan, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

March 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content (particularly if you change facts and figures), as you have to the article Powergaming, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. You have added a number of fake references to that article that do not support the text cited [1] [2] [3]. Don't do that again or you'll find yourself indef blocked. Pcap ping 06:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Don't worry about it ManicSpider. The guy above was deleting references on the basis that they were "probably fake" because "the title of the book didn't contain the words". Sadly not everyone on Wikipedia is as conscientious about reading their sources as you are. I've reinstated the sources and despite his words he doesn't have the authority (thankfully) to indefinitely block anyone. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Response

My references were not faked, though I'll admit one of them could be replaced with a more pertinent example. I have asked in future that the editor accusing me of this familiarise him/herself with WP:Bite and WP:GOODFAITH before making accusations of this nature. I hope this signifies an end to this unpleasantness. ManicSpider (talk) 10:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Warning: space ranger!

Found this little messagebox, thought you might like it. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

This talk page discussion involves a user who is currently in outer space. Information may change rapidly as the mission progresses.

Thanks, yes! ManicSpider (talk) 00:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Marie-Rosalie Cadron-Jetté

On April 18, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Marie-Rosalie Cadron-Jetté, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Rescue

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armageddon theology WritersCramp (talk) 13:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Invite

You may be interested to come to the Wikipedia celebration on 15 January in Canberra. see http://ten.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canberra . Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

rewriting

Congratulation on a splendid job of rewriting from scratch the naive copvio at the article on Abdul Majid Zabuli ! It's not easy to do such good work to the very short deadline that our deletion processes unfortunately require. DGG ( talk ) 05:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Nice work ...

on improving the Abdul Majid Zabuli article.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, you may want to consider it for DYK submission as it was substantially rewritten and the 'encyclopedic' content was substantially increased ;) un☯mi 15:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks ^_^ There's still some more stuff that I want to add into it though. I really appreciate your comments :-) ManicSpider (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Unomi makes a good point. Just so you know, there are time limits as to when you can bring an article to DYK. If you are interested in the process, let me know (here is fine) and I will point you to the rules. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, ManicSpider. You have new messages at Ron Ritzman's talk page.
Message added 00:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Grier

Hey,

I appreciate the work you're doing, but since neither of the articles you added discuss Grier in enough detail to satisfy WP:BIO, you'd have to make the case that "first XYZ vice-chancellor of the New York diocese" and "unspecified bishops' advisory council member" were notable in and of themselves. See List of African-American firsts as a comparison: the people on it are notable for being the first to do whatever it is they're the first to do, but they also apparently fulfill the criteria for WP:BIO because of things they have done or coverage they have received. Can you find any significant coverage on Grier (ie. an article that gives more than a few lines of detail)? That would be really helpful. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks, I appreciate the input. I guess I'm having trouble seeing how she's not notable as a reproductive rights activist. Her comments and opinions on the subject are quoted at length - http://books.google.com/books?id=TcIDAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA16&dq=%22dolores%20grier%22&pg=PA16#v=onepage&q=%22dolores%20grier%22&f=false - http://books.google.com/books?id=8lPH4qIscpsC&lpg=PA108&dq=%22dolores%20grier%22&pg=PA108#v=onepage&q=%22dolores%20grier%22&f=false - and in several other books found through a Google Book search. No, I can't find anything discussing HER as a person, but what she's notable for is being an activist - ie. having strong opinions and expressing them widely and there are plenty of sources on that. - ManicSpider (talk) 01:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Further - having looked at WP:BIO, "People are generally notable if they meet any of the following standards... 2.The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field" summarises nicely what I've been trying to say above - ManicSpider (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, "widely recognized contribution" and "enduring historical record" are kind of key phrases there. Check out the footnote to that line: "Generally, a person who is 'part of the enduring historical record' will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians." I think we can discount "historical record," and if she'd made a "widely recognized contribution" then presumably some sources would have discussed that contribution. As far as I can see, no one's done an article on her in her capacity of vice-chancellor of community relations, no one's done an article on her in her capacity of head of We're Really Against Abortion, no one's done an article in her in her capacity as author. No significant coverage, period.

I don't really know what you're getting at with "what she's notable for is being an activist - ie. having strong opinions and expressing them widely and there are plenty of sources on that." If there were plenty of sources on her and her opinions, they would be in the article, but there aren't. We know she's against abortion. Big deal, so are a lot of other people. We have an article on the "pro-life" movement because the "pro-life" movement's opinions are notable, that doesn't mean every individual person who considers herself "pro-life" is notable just for sharing a notable opinion. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• Firstly, saying that if something existed it would be in the article is just wrong. There are plenty of unreferenced BLPs of notable people. But that's really beside the point, and honestly chances are your argument will be preferred - there's three deletes against one keep. I personally feel that she is notable - the two sources I've listed above are in addition to what's in the article and I'm absolutely certain there are more out there. I'm not saying she's notable for being against abortion, just as I wasn't saying Virginia Whitehill was notable for being pro-choice. It's that they are both notable as activists in the same field. I'm really not trying to get into a fight, I just hold a different opinion at present to what seems to be the common consensus. - ManicSpider (talk) 02:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
• As a postscript, I think if the article was kept the part on the book should be deleted. That seems unverifiable. - ManicSpider (talk) 02:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm saying "they would be in the article" because I dislike unreferenced BLPs and would have added them if I had found them. You haven't found anything I didn't find before nominating the article, and dude, what we found spectacularly fails to establish notability. And I get that you're not trying to start a fight - I'm not, either. I just spend too much time at AfD to have a lot of patience for "They spoke her name! She's notable!" arguments. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• Except that's really not what I'm saying. Anyways, I've made my arguments and that's all I can really do. - ManicSpider (talk) 02:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

=Userfied

Howdy, I had the page userfied at User:Haymaker/Dolores Bernadette Grier and will try to take a stab at rewriting it and reintroducing it. Please lend a hand if you have the time. - Haymaker (talk) 08:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Juliusz Kleiner - not a vandalism

My edition(s) to Juliusz Kleiner on 7 Jan 2011 were not a vandalism. For explanation see my talk: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MusJab%C5%82kowy

MusJabłkowy (talk) 12:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Noted and responded on talk page. - ManicSpider (talk) 16:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Advice requested

After requesting advice and receiving it, I am also taking it and going to go edit something else for a while :-)

Hello! I'm in a bit of a dilemma. I participated in an AfD discussion regarding an article by Greggy2746 - followed by the 2nd nomination after the article was remade. I then also participated in this discussion, where I was perhaps a little cutting. I had a quick look at the user's previous contributions, and noticed that he had been inserting mentions of The Fronts of War into articles such as Stop motion here and Clint Mansell here and here.

My question is twofold - firstly, I'm concerned that my participation in the debates makes it inappropriate for me to undo these additions. Is that the case per the WP Guidelines? And secondly, is there a guideline on what level of inappropriate editing is required to make some form of complaint about an editor?

I don't want to be harassing, but the edits seem to me be inappropriate. Some guidance would be much appreciated! - ManicSpider (talk) 10:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

(I'm not an admin, so I will leave the 'adminhelp' template in place)

I think that the most important thing is to separate discussion about article content from discussion of specific editors.

You should, of course, continue to contribute to Wikipedia - and I'm sure you are already aware that, when others do not necessarily agree with your edits, it is necessary to discuss it with them and form a consensus.

In theory, it should be possible to discuss things without any problems of personalilty; in practice, of course, clashes occur. However, we still keep the content discussion entirely separate; we have tried-and-tested methods for solving any content dispute, as outlined in WP:DISCUSS - with '3rd opinion', informal and formal mediation.

Now, with regards to an editors conduct - there is no 'bright line', like everything else in Wikipedia it is up to the community to decide what action must be taken, and when.

If you believe that another editors conduct is of concern, then I suggest reporting it to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts , initially.

Please remember the vital points - that a) the purpose in highlighting such a concern is to make Wikipedia better; to avoid harm to the project, and b) that the optimal outcome is, wherever possible, to reach agreement so that we can all contribute our disparate viewpoints.

Of course, some people will not accept that - and they can be blocked or banned from the project.

I hope that helps a little. Personally, I strongly recommend editing something completely different for a bit - step away, have a break. And a nice cup of tea. Best of luck,  Chzz  ►  10:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

John Jarman

Thanks. I didn't know the best/policy/guideline way to not bite a new user, esp. family; added help template, went IRC and no helper after 20 minutes; my subsequent saves showed new messages (and poor communication on my part, I guess); in the future I'll refresh the talk page while on IRC just in case. Making a user account on Sunday (my 42nd birthday) re: Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. 75.204.53.76 (talk) 06:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Your idea on when to make your user account made me laugh ^_^ And I completely understand where you were coming from - I read through a lot of guidelines trying to work out the best way to do it without being mean about it! Cheers, - ManicSpider (talk) 02:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

And now in user space! Smile; it increases your face value. :D Dru of Id (talk) 06:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Josef Schultz

I have made some edits to the article. I wonder if you have have any luck at the library? ^walk victor falk ^talk 03:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Juliusz Kleiner

Thanks for your response. My edit summary "Pole; large contribution to national culture. By Hitler Nuremberg Law regarded a Jew..." was composed to tell, why I have removed info that he was a Jew. This really could have been considered a vandalism, as this is true that he was born in a Jewish family. He was baptized at age of 8 or 9 and did much for the Polish nation; he always considered himself a Pole. Because of antisemitism still widely present in Poland this would be bad for him and for his family to make people remember his ethnic origin.

I had only 200 characters in "edit summary" to explain the reasons of removing this true info. Perhaps I would do better if I made several consecutive edits: one removing the word "Jew" (with the explanation like the discussed one) and another one integrating two informations about Skwarczyńska and putting them in a better order. Excuse me these imperfections - I am rather new in Wikipedia.

Thanks in advance for your re-introducing my changes. Or, if you prefer, tell me to do it myself, but confirm the changes as soon as they appear to avoid canceling them by other privileged editors. As I think, the only things worth doing now are

1. removing

In 1940 and 1941, Juliusz Kleiner advocated for the release of a Polish woman who had been deported to a forced labour camp in Kazakhstan.[3]

(the woman was Skwarczyńska) with preserving the link 3 from the removed text (moving it 2 lines up).

2. Restoring a link to page about Skwarczyńska in Polish Wikipedia.

MusJabłkowy (talk) 16:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Lots of deletions

Since you were curious about my deletions, I've left a response on the ARS talk page.

Always willing to explain any of my individual deletions. DS (talk) 00:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I've responded, and your civility is appreciated, especially seeing as my own behaviour was a little gauche. :-) - ManicSpider (talk) 01:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

About Arsames

Hi friend. Thanks for the help and info. Nice to meet you Rock on --Peace (talk) 11:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter

Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter Volume I, Issue III February 2012 Front cover | Feature | News and announcements | Humor | Want ads To contribute to the next newsletter, please visit the Newsletter draft page. ARS Members automatically receive this newsletter. To opt out, please remove your name from the recipients list.

WikiWomen's Collaborative

WikiWomen Unite!

Hi ManicSpider! Women around the world who edit and contribute to Wikipedia are coming together to celebrate each other's work, support one another, and engage new women to also join in on the empowering experience of shaping the sum of all the world's knowledge - through the WikiWomen's Collaborative. As a WikiWoman, we'd love to have you involved! You can do this by: Liking the WikiWomen's Collaborative on Facebook and share your tips, projects, and connect with other WikiWomen Join the conversation on our Twitter feed Reading and writing for our blog channel We can't wait to have you involved, and feel free to drop by our meta page (under construction) to see how else you can get involved! Can't wait to have you involved! SarahStierch (talk) 00:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

RfC:Infobox Road proposal

WP:AURD (Australian Roads), is inviting comment on a proposal to convert Australian road articles to {{infobox road}}. Please come and discuss. The vote will be after concerns have been looked into.

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian Roads/RfC:Infobox Road proposal

You are being notified as a member on the list of WP:AUS

Nbound (talk) 05:30, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of world championships medalists in powerlifting (women), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Linda Miller (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:12, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Helen Deutsch, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sunday Mail (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at AfC Sue Roberts (powerlifter) was accepted

Sue Roberts (powerlifter), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post 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.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 20:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

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) 14:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, ManicSpider. 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)

New Challenge for Oceania and Australia

Hi, Wikipedia:WikiProject Oceania/The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/The 5000 Challenge are up and running based on Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge which has currently produced over 2300 article improvements and creations. The Australia challenge would feed into the wider region one and potentially New Zealand could have a smaller challenge too. The main goal is content improvement, tackling stale old stubs and important content and improving sourcing/making more consistent but new articles are also welcome if sourced. I understand that this is a big goal for regular editors, especially being summertime where you are, but if you'd like to see large scale quality improvements happening for Oceania and Australia like The Africa Destubathon, which has produced over 1700 articles in 5 weeks, sign up on the page. The idea will be an ongoing national editathon/challenge for the region but fuelled by a series of contests to really get articles on every province and subject mass improved. The Africa contest scaled worldwide would naturally provide great benefits to Oceania countries, particularly Australia and attract new editors. I would like some support from existing editors here to get the Challenges off to a start with some articles to make doing a Destubathon worthwhile and potentially bring about hundreds of improvements in a few weeks through a contest! Cheers.♦ --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, ManicSpider. 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)

Canberra meetup

Hi, there will be a meetup in Canberra on the 20 January 2018 at 7pm, I hope you're able to make it but understand that this is very short notice. Bidgee (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, ManicSpider. 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) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)