User talk:Metropolitan90

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

the 'unusual' nature of the NH simulcast[edit]

Hello again, I think the 'unusual' aspect is worth noting. You removed the language here,[1] because (I presume) there was no inline cite at the time. It did exist once, my original mainspace-draft[2] provided a mid-sentence cite to here,[3] which is a semi-about-self-source since they are an event co-sponsor, but the "unusual" nature of the collaboration was backed up by a quotation from some professor. “Cooperation by multiple media partners to host the upcoming Union Leader forum is very significant and unprecedented,” said Wayne Lesperance, professor of political science at New England College in Henniker. “Typically, media competes to host separate events like this forum. In this case, that they are cooperating is something new.” Anyways, if you can see a good way to work that in without calling it "unusual" that is fine by me, or if you think we should just state the facts of the simulcast (which I didn't realize is "a real word" nowadays :-) then I can probably also be convinced of that pathway. Thanks for your work, as always. (talk) 19:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

  • See WP:EDITORIAL. I don't think that Wikipedia normally wants editors to comment on how "unusual" an event may be. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, I agree we should not be using our own commentary. But I'm just condensing the "very significant" and the "unprecedented" and the "something new" quotations from the professor, into a summarized form of 'quite unusually'. We can quote them directly if you would rather, or use some other forumulation besides 'quite unusual' if you have a better phrasing-suggestion, but I do think it's an important part of explaining who&why of the forum, and the Lesperance guy agrees with me. (talk) 16:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I still don't think it's that interesting. It's not like Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC (media companies in direct competition with each other) cosponsored the forum; the sponsors were largely from different states and different types of media. Are any of the co-sponsors rivals of each other? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Heh heh... are you really saying WP:NOTINTERESTING can go up against the professor-quote?  :-)     But yes, I catch your drift, and from what I can tell, there was indeed overlap in terms of the simulcast-partners (which is different from the "official co-sponsor" list I note) being rivals for the same media-markets. The main collaborators were CSPAN, NBC, and ABC, plus a few CBS folks; they formed an alliance (temporarily -- whether it becomes permanent remains to be seen), to keep FOX and CNN from being given the lion's share of presidential-debate-coverage/revenues/marketshare/mindshare/cashflow. It was also a warning-shot to the RNC-party-senate, from the early-state-activists, that they don't want polling-firms and national-teevee-networks to winnow the field of candidates, they want the early states to retain that function (via caucuses and primaries and early-state-media-events).
some WP:OR concerning the specifics: 4-way NH, 3-way IA, 3-way SC, and 2-way collaborative-competition in a couple dozen other media-markets
  • I count four teevee rivals in the NH market (WBIN/WMUR/NECN/CSPAN), three in IA market (KCRG/WYFF/CSPAN), and three in SC market (WLTX/KCCI/CSPAN). There were also multiple radio rivals in those same markets (again NH was most-collaboratively-competitive with three or four radio-rivals by my WP:OR counts), if that makes a difference to you, and of course, internet-live-streams from Hearst and C-SPAN and iHeart and a few other simulcast-partners are also visible in NH and the other states.
  • Besides those three states, there was also competition between Hearst and C-SPAN in another two dozen cities, allegedly (I believe 27 of the 31 Hearst stations broadcast in competitive-collaboration with C-SPAN). Although I don't know the exact stations, we can do a little WP:SYNTH here on usertalk and draw some conclusions: of the two dozen other Hearst stations, 12 were ABC affiliates, and 9 were NBC affiliates, and the vast majority of those were simulcast partners (since 27 out of 31 leaves little wiggle room).
  • The most "interesting" WP:OR factoid is that zero[citation needed] FOX affialiates were involved, and no CNN/TNT either;[citation needed] using the fresh-off-the-presses-in-2012 change known as rule#12, the RNC "party-senate" has not merely cut the debate-schedule from 27 free-for-all events to 12 sanctioned-with-teeth events (and only half of those prior to super tuesday), the RNC has *also* given FOX and CNN primacy of place, and thereby shafted (relatively speaking) ABC and NBC and CBS and CSPAN. The forum in NH, which I note was originally scheduled for August 6th to directly compete with the FOX debate, and only later moved to August 3rd so it could be the zeroth debate-which-is-technically-not-a-debate, was nigh-entirely[citation needed] backed by competitors to FOX/CNN, and in particular, by CSPAN in an 'unusual' collaboration with ABC and NBC and a few CBS folks.
  • Of the financial-backers, AfP and LFoDA are definitely more tea-party-leaning groups, as opposed to estab-leaning-groups. I don't know about the Eversource Energy and the Eastern Bank folks, one way or the other, whether they are tea-and-grassroots-leaning, or more estab-types that still want to see more debates&forums rather than fewer (or perhaps just want to see more focus on early-caucus-n-primary states rather than on national-polling-data).
  • I further note, before leaving WP:OR behind, that the forum-questions were very softball in my interpretation, and for the most part, gave the candidates time to talk about exactly what they wanted to be talking about, with scrupulously-equal amounts of time (technical troubles related to satellites notwithstanding). The FOX debate is extremely unlikely to allocate airtime evenly amongst the candidates (even in the primetime debate-tier), and furthermore unlikely to have any softball-questions (except perhaps for candidates the FOX moderators prefer). Thus, one might conjecture, the equal-time softball-question forum-format could be an attempt on the part of cspan/nbc/abc/cbs/newspapers/etc to entice the presidential candidates to consider engaging in further participation, should potential future "forums" be scheduled, which are technically not debates and only quasi-sanctioned by the RNC, but will give the candidates free nationwide airtime to spread their message, and get their names known, with relatively little risk to their campaigns. The FOX/CNN debates are going to be high-threshold high-risk high-reward environment; the CSPAN/NBC/ABC/CBS forum was a low-to-no-threshold low-to-no-risk pretty-decent-reward environment.
  • Anyways, I don't care if we call the NH forum simulcast-roster 'quite unusual[ref#55]' as I originally summarized the prof, or if we quote per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and say that "according to professor Wayne Lesperance the "cooperation by multiple media partners... is very significant and unprecedented"[ref#55] or whatever exact phrasing of the factoid we end up with, but I do think the factoid itself needs mentioning. Besides nominal media-competitors working together (nbc+abc+cbs+cspan&&grassroots banding together in an alliance of convenience versus fox+cnn&&rnc), the media-entities-from-multiple-states collaboration aspect was also 'unusual' to say the least; Iowa local-teevee-stations have never simulcast NH events before, that I am aware. There are deeper undercurrents here, that the reader should be clued in about, if they care to perform some of their own WP:OR about this topic, by reading the sources we link unto, for themselves. I'm pretty indifferent about how exactly we point the readership towards the sources which explain the 'unusual'-ness, but we do need to point it out as WP:NOTEWORTHY, per the prof-quote, or per a pointer to some other source which discusses the media-collab, if you prefer. (talk) 14:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

table logistics[edit]

To slim down the width, you removed the non-primary sponsors from the debate-table.[4] I agree we need to keep the table-width svelte. Potentially, going forward, <humour> we could slim down the table width even further... perhaps we could winnow the candidate-fields by selecting five recent polls of our choice and retaining only the top ten candidates in wikipedia? Alternatively, we could use the averages of all major live-interview polls since July, and pick the top ten (or the top eight in fewer than 15 make our cut), relegating the lesser candidates to a secondary article? Perhaps we should invite all the candidates to the main article, but remove their columns if they decline to be listed on wikipedia? </humour>

  More seriously, though, I was planning on adding a footnote-scheme, where for instance with the list of co-sponsors for the C-SPAN event, it would say "C-SPAN, et al[33]" and when the reader mouse-hovered over #33 it would display the full listing of co-sponsors. Does that sound reasonable? In particular, many of the simulcast partners at the C-SPAN thing were not officially co-sponsors, so I think the list of co-sponsors and the list of re-broadcasters is distinct. (talk) 11:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

  • I admit, I don't know exactly who counts as a co-sponsor and who counts as a re-broadcaster, but I do know (a) that non-broadcasters (universities, magazines, foundations, etc.) are not broadcasters, and (b) that there is plenty of room to list any sponsors and all broadcasters in the prose descriptions of the debates, and trying to fit them into the table is very awkward. Even adding footnotes to the table should be avoided because of the space they take up. So, no, I do not think it sounds reasonable to put the sponsors in a footnote in the table. Please put that information in the prose section instead. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Yeah, we agree they belong in the prose, not spelled out in the table. That said, I don't think adding a hover-over-me-footnote-superscript to the sponsor-column will severely impact the table-width, though I do agree that space is tight and we need to cut where we can. On a somewhat-related formatting issue, I think that we should not be worried about having one or two immediately-attached footnotes for the absentee-reasons, because those footnote-superscripts do NOT change the table-width... the "Gilmore" in the table-header is the determiner of the column-width, and the "O[29]" in the first row is always going to require fewer pixels, unless we really go overboard and have "O[29][30][31][32][33][34][35]". But the debate-sponsor-footnotes arguably *will* increase the total table-width, if only relatively slightly. We could always have some embedded (br/) tags, to try and keep the sponsor-column-width reasonable. Are you able to test the table-width in some actual small-screen devices, smartphones and tablets and such? Most of the screens I have readily available are, umm, not very small. Is the table as it is now, already scrolling on 7" tablet screens? Or on ~4" smartphone screens? Or are you just being extra-careful because you know -- and I would agree with you -- that we are almost certainly pushing the screen-real-estate-limits of such devices? (talk) 16:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I tried viewing the article on a smartphone, but the results were inconclusive. The table cut off after the Jeb Bush column on the smartphone screen and left the right half of the screen blank. (Democratic Party presidential debates, 2016 worked differently; the table there did scroll on the smartphone.) I don't really know what to say about this, except that we need to conserve as much space as we can. The prose sections are there for a reason; anything that needs citation should have its citations in the prose sections, not the table, because there is no room in the table. We're pushing the screen real estate limits on desktop computers. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
      • I later tried it again on a smartphone, and this time the whole table displayed, although it took up about two and a half screen widths; that is, only about 40% of the table could be displayed without scrolling. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
        • I also tried to slim the width down, but was reverted.[5] I will put back in the letter-key-linebreak, and see if that bit is permitted to stand. I also suggest we change from 4em to 3em, since although the columns will be differing widths rather than uniform widths, it will still cut the table-width by ~20% or thereabouts. Here is a direct-link to 4em.[6] Here is a direct-link to 3em with 100%tablesize.[7] Here is overly-wide-explanatory-key-cellspan at 4em.[8] I suggest that we probably want 90%tablesize and 3em col-widths, rather than 90%tablesize with 4em col-widths, since on my desktop-screen that makes the table-width 10.5" instead of 12.0" wide aka 270mm versus 305mm. Huckabee and Santorum have the longest lastnames, so they will have extra-wide columns at 3em, but short of hyphenating their names that cannot be helped.
    More drastically, I would also suggest that we eliminate the "place" and the "host" columns entirely, since they seem to be a constant source of good-faith-corrections, and replace them with a "state" column that merely says NH/OH/CA/CO/WI/NV/etc, and then hyperlinks to the appropriate prose-subsection so that people can read about the "St.Anselm&Goffstown & CSPAN&Hearst&manyMore / QuickenLoans&Cleveland & FOX&Facebook&manymore / etc" type of details. That change would cut the width to 9.0" aka 225mm on my big screen, which is a 15% width-savings versus 10.5" and a 25% width-savings versus 12.0" that we have now. (talk) 15:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
(p.s. I looked at the dem-table, I could see no HTML-related technical-reason it would scroll and the repub table would not. Do you see the same no-scrolling-behavior, with all the permalinked variants above? If so we should call for tech-help, at the village pump or similar. In related matters, I also could see that KCCI and WMUR were listed as dem-debate-co-sponsors... those were two of the repub-forum-simulcasters ... and that FOX was not listed as a dem-debate-sponsor anywheres although CNN was... per our conversation above, there are deeper currents here, not just one prof's take on the media-collaboration-thing.) (talk) 16:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I see no problem with the way this is right now. Maybe the boxes could be slimmed slightly for candidates inclusion, but other than that the table is well organized, and I don't have problems on my iPhone 6. If you beging removed entire categories, like host or location, the table loses purpose. Spartan7W § 13:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


Thanks for fixing up my stuff, it is much appreciated.[9] However, you can leave out the underscore-fixing-portion of the effort, if you wish to, because there is a bot which does that specific fix, Yobot-via-AWB.[10] If you take requests, can you reword the tortured sentence that starts like this: "Historically, there is a correlation..." I had trouble making it plain, yet properly explaining what it meant. No problem if you don't want to mess with that, o'course. Talk to you later, (talk) 16:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

As a significant contributor to the article United States presidential election, 2016, your participation in this discussion would be helpful and appreciated. Thank you. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Marianna Zorba AFD (2nd nomination)[edit]

Thanks for fixing the nom. I knew it was malformatted but could not figure out how to fix it. Yours, Quis separabit? 11:56, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

(Sir) Syed Sani Syed Ali Shah Bukhari[edit]

there's a standard procedure for dealing with requested page moves and name disputes-- see Wikipedia:Requested moves. I've deleted the duplicated article--that's not how we do it. DGG ( talk ) 05:22, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 21[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Down and Dirty Duck, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Lampoon (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) 10:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 29[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Walking Down Canal Street, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rugby (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) 09:52, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 13:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Angela Walker[edit]

Hi there, I just started Angela Walker. I noticed that you started the article on her running mate, Mimi Soltysik, and thought that you may be interested in expanding her article as well. I am too busy at the moment to give the article too much time. Happy editing!--TM 01:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

List of real and fictional people with the surname White ‎[edit]


You deleted List of real and fictional people with the surname White and I will concede that the primary article White (surname) may have handled the long list of names. Would you be so kind to allow me access to the List of real and fictional names so they can be added to the article along with the info box and organization that was also deleted? Jrcrin001 (talk) 14:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Rocky De La Fuente for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rocky De La Fuente is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rocky De La Fuente until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 19:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Presidential Candidate Scott Copeland[edit]

I've noticed that you have created a couple of articles on minor candidates in the 2016 US Presidential election, and I've been hoping to potentially add others, specifically those that are Republican, Democratic, or running within the major Third Parties. Now I've tried my hand at creating articles before but I don't consider my skills up to snuff; I'm one of those users who is good at transcribing, editing in facts, creating tables, that sort of thing. If you have the time, I'm wondering if you could write an article in my stead, provided there is enough information to merit an article. The candidate in question, Scott Copeland, has a number of hits on local news networks, blogs and elsewhere. Not as many as Rocky De La Fuente, but maybe enough to clear a minimum. The links to those pages are below:
Thanks. --Ariostos (talk) 08:30, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Metropolitan90![edit]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.


As you previously participated in a related discussion, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States presidential election, 2024. Reywas92Talk 23:05, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 26[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Baden-Württemberg state election, 2016, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Free Democratic Party, Die Linke and Christian Democratic Union (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) 10:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:List of state leaders in 2016#RfC: Inclusion of Palestine as a sub state of Israel[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of state leaders in 2016#RfC: Inclusion of Palestine as a sub state of Israel. Could you please give your opinion on whether or not Palestine should be considered a separate sovereign entity from Israel? Many thanks Spirit Ethanol (talk) 15:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Mojoflo deleted page[edit]


You recently deleted the page for the band Mojoflo. The argument was made that they failed to meet WP:Band.

I believe they do meet #7: Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city. They've been named Best Local Band by two separate publications: 614 Magazine and Columbus Monthly

Would you mind reviewing this deletion at your convenience.

COI full disclosure - I'm their manager.


Lostasil (talk) 02:15, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Hi, sorry I didn't get back to you earlier. The reason I deleted Mojoflo is that the article failed the articles for deletion discussion with nobody recommending that it be kept. If you want the article to be brought back, the procedure to go through is Wikipedia:Deletion review. I can get that set up for you, but once it is set up, you will have to be the one to provide the explanation for why the band is notable and the article should be brought back. Let me know if you want me to do that. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:29, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • That would be great - thanks for your help! I'll look out for the deletion review and respond. Lostasil (talk) 12:10, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review for Mojoflo[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Mojoflo. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Being literal-minded, I'm notifying myself of this DRV. Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


Wp:aiv is dangerously overfull and I need you to jump on it immediately. (talk) 03:16, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Really? It doesn't look that bad to me. How many entries is usually considered overfull at WP:AIV? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:19, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Either way, many of those vandals are still vandalizing and I need you to stop them I know you dont usualllly block people but I need you this time. (talk) 03:22, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection[edit]

Padlock-blue.svg Hello, Metropolitan90. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.
Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Metropolitan90. You have new messages at Talk:PepperTap.
Message added 06:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The nominator has questioned your recent close of the AfD discussion on the talk page of this article. It seems fair to notify you of this matter. North America1000 06:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Real estate in Puerto Rico (2nd nomination)[edit]

Well done. I will change my vote to a keep now. The Ninja5 Empire (Talk) 01:57, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins[edit]


Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Johnnie L. Cochran Jr. Middle School [edit]

Thanks for cleaning up the mess of copies. Meters (talk) 04:59, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers[edit]

Hi Metropolitan90.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Metropolitan90. 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)

The Challenge Series[edit]

The Challenge Series is a current drive on English Wikipedia to encourage article improvements and creations globally through a series of 50,000/10,000/1000 Challenges for different regions, countries and topics. All Wikipedia editors in good standing are invited to participate.