User talk:Morinae

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


Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

  • Respect intellectual property rights - do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
  • Maintain a neutral point of view when editing articles - this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
  • If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
  • Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Adding such information or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism, doing so will result your account being blocked from editing.

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! SatuSuro 09:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Please stop insisting that Judo, Jujutsu and BJJ are the same art read the articles on them. They have key differences, which is why they are listed in different sections, pinning important in judo but is not used in Jujutsu or BJJ, which both use locks extensively (bjj on the ground JJ standing) where as throws play are a large part of Judo & Jujutsu but not BJJ, they are inter related but calling them the same is like saying Taekwondo is the same as karate and Taekkyon(that won has just been added & my 1st instinct was to remove it as a school of taekwondo, having read the article it's not, it is closely related but just because there both form Korea dose not mean they are one & the same Read the articles . --Nate 10:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Separation of Malay/Indonesia[edit]

Hi, over the last year a significant number of edit wars and debates have occured on the definition of 'malay' issues and what various editors in singapore, malaysia and indonesia - think of their collective cultural identity and their differences - before editing like you just did - perhaps you would like to put comments on the talk page before editing further on that issue.

Please - hati hati - the notion of what is considered malay and indonesian geography and similar issues is full of WP:NPOV traps - please consider this carefully before further edits like that one. Thank you SatuSuro 09:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Please - If you can find an article - such as one that asserts your claim - please link it into the article - and revert my edit - I am simply going by what has happened in the past on various issues related to the distinction. SatuSuro 09:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Min Zin[edit]

Please discuss your edits on the corresponding talk page prior to making any major changes. Thanks-Reconsider! 09:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Wikipedia is a collaborative project and thus it is a good idea to discuss your changes and wait for the input of other contributors. -Reconsider! 10:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Keris lok-9[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Keris lok-9 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No independent sources found to suggest WP:Notability.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Plutonium27 (talk) 15:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

  • I have not come across any of those other articles you mentioned. This was a new page which did not, on its merits, appear to meet the notability requirement. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for clarification of policy on the "but what about x, y, z.." argument. Plutonium27 (talk) 17:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Choy Li Fut[edit]

Hi Morinae,

I wrote this up a while back to address move and rename wars regarding the Cai Li Fo page.

It is not good to nitpick over little details such as this. We have a great page here which gives credit to many of the branches of Choy Li Fut. The only reason why anyone would want to change the name of this page is for political reasons. Lets keep politics and passions out of this wiki page and concentrate on the content. I believe that the page should be left as Cai Li Fo. I will add both Mandarin and Cantonese to the top description. Okay, let me explain the linguistic problems. First Chinese as a spoken language is tonal not phonetic like most western languages such as our English. There are basically 4 tones in Mandarin, 7 in Cantonese. The system of writing Chinese words into English is called Pinyin. For example "choy" can be written as "Choi" or "Tsoi", etc. That is because it is difficult to write tones and refined sounds into letters. To try and standardize the English writing of Chinese words and to take into consideration pronunciation, pinyin standards such as Gwoyeu Romatzyh of 1928, Latinxua Sin Wenz of 1931,Wade-Giles (1859; modified 1892), zhuyin, etc.. were created over history to address these problems. Each of them had differing standards. The official 2009 national standarized pinyin of China is called Hanyu Pinyin. There are 107+ known spoken dialects in China. In Cantonese alone, you have dialects such as Toi-san, Sam-yup, Sei-yup, Gok-gong, Hakka, etc.. Each will pronounce "Choy Li Fut" slightly different, thus the transliteration to English, depending on what pinyin you used, and when it was used, will create differences in the English spelling. An example would be the word "Chi". If you use the Chinese Postal Romanization, you can write it as Chi, ch'i, and hsi (pinyin ji, qi, and xi) are represented as either tsi, tsi, and si or ki, ki, and hi depending on historic pronunciation, etc. The official Chinese Hanyu Pinyin of 2009 romanized spelling of Chi is Qi, whether you like it or not, whether you are from the South or North. So arguing whether Choy Li Fut should be written as Choi Lei Fut or Tsoi Lee Fot, is ridiculous and wasting time. If you wish to conform to the most popular Southern Cantonese standard for the name, the "Choy Li Fut" would be the one. Another problem. To make Choy Li Fut a widely known martial arts in China, and to standardize it's name. You have to use Mandarin. To unify the country as a whole and remove the dialect issues. The government of China made Mandarin the official language of China. Since Hong Kong is now part of China again, Mandarin is now the official language in Hong Kong even though people still speak their dialects. Even with written and spoken Mandarin, Taiwan uses the older written language while mainland China uses a simplified version. Most people born and educated before WWII in China and Japan can read the old style of writing as well as the newer simplified form. To deal with this issue, I will mention both names at the top of the article. To deal with transliterations of the romanized spellings, when a wiki user types in any transliteration of Choy li Fut, Cai Li Fo, Choi Lei Fut, whatever, the wiki has been set up to auto-magically send them to this page.

I hope this clarifies why the transliterations of Cantonese words is not and should not be a debatable issue. It takes away from the content of the page and focuses on the irrelevant. Huo Xin (talk) 23:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


Could you explain this change of the interwiki links? Thank you. --Nk (talk) 05:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

While making the change referred above you have broken many interwiki links replacing some of the names with arbitrary symbols (here is the repair that I made). I suppose that the change has been made by accident. --Nk (talk) 11:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit summary[edit]

Hi, please don't forget to leave an edit summary the next time you make an edit on an article you haven't been a significant contributor to. That prevents perfectly legitimate edits such as yours from being misconstrued as vandalism. Regards, Joyson Noel Holla at me! 19:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Sai (weapon)[edit]

    • Hello, please stop removing referenced info, especially without adding COMPLETE edit summery. If you have an alternative name or information add it as long as you have references. Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 11:43, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
    • "But please stop insisting on the "tjabang" spelling just because that's the spelling used by Draeger."???? I encourage you to add any other additional names if you have acceptable references for them but you can not remove "tjabang" just because you personally do not like it as a term. Wikipedia is about providing VALID information and I can assure you that more than one book uses the term "tjabang". If other spellings are used and you can show this through acceptable inline references then add them along with "tjabang". Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 14:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
    • You are removing REFERENCED material and leaving no edit comments, if you do not stop this I will have to report your actions to an administrator.Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 13:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
    • First, Wikipedia requires references, and the name "tjabang" is a well known referenced term, you removed this term and added a term for which you used no references, if you have have references than use them. Your personal opinion is not allowable in Wikipedia no matter how much you believe you are right, VALID references are required to back up what you add to an article or the material is removable. Second you are constantly making edits without adding any comments as to your reason for making these edits. Like I said before, if you have any information to add do so by all means but it must be referenced properly or the information is subject to be removed or it may be changed, also remember this is the English version of Wikipedia, if you have any references that show that the word "tjabang" is not used in Indonesia then add that info to the article, Wikipedia is about providing valid referenced information and if a certain term is not used in some countries and you can prove that then that information should be included in the article.Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 13:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
    • You are removing properly reference information and using invalid references, I have no problem with you ADDING properly referenced information but whether you like the term "tjabang" or not it a valid term proved by valid references, the references you are using are not allowed by Wikipedia..please read this Wikipedia:Verifiability. Do what I have had to do, search through the internet and find BOOKS that support your statements and or terms or BUY some books like I have had to do, some web site that just happens to post text that you like is not acceptable.Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 11:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Hello, you completely removed the term "tjabang", and no matter how much you dislike that term it is a recognized term at least here in the west, you are free to ADD any additional terms you can find references for as I already did. I am not against adding any additional properly referenced terms or text that might help a future reader of an article gain some knowledge of the subject. The tjabang that is pictured in the article was purchased by me from an antiques dealer in Indonesia and he listed it as a "tjabang", thats the term that is most common here and if you can add some additional relevant information that would be great, I am just asking that it be properly referenced.Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 07:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
    • "Alternate spellings should generally be confined to their own articles (in this case, the tekpi article). This is a common practice with words for which there's more than one spelling." Were do you get this from?, many Japanese weapons have several names and people disagree on which one is the most commonly used one, these terms are all listed in the articles such as Hachiwara, Gunbai (Gumbai), Gunpai (Gumpai) or dansen uchiwa, Yoroi tōshi, Kanabō.

Boli Khela[edit]

You also need to merge the talk pages (Talk:Boli Khela). Aditya(talkcontribs) 16:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Morinae. You have new messages at ZarlanTheGreen's talk page.
Message added 07:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.


Ambox warning yellow.svg

I am undoing your revision of my edit on the template. I am making official complain against your consistent vandalism in Bangladeshi martial arts, Lathi Khela, Boli Khela articles. Please stick to Wikipedia norms rather than indulging in patriotic/heroic efforts.(Mohd. Toukir Hamid (talk) 06:21, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Adopted!? Seriously!?[edit]

Play, drill and flourish (I am unsure about the term form) are all historical terms that have been used, for the concept/practice that practitioners of Eastern Martial arts call "kata".
...and drill (at least) has never ceased, in its use for the practice.
To imply that the concept has been adopted from outside, is ridiculous. What martial art does there exist, which doesn't have drills? Are you saying that Europeans didn't use drills/katas, until they were exposed to the concept, by the Far East?

Please note that there are plenty of European martial arts, that are in no way reconstructions (most of which you know of, though you generally don't think of them as martial arts):

  • Wrestling (many different varieties)
  • Boxing (many different varieties)
  • Stick fighting (many different varieties)
  • Knife fighting (at least some varieties. I'm not so familiar with them, though)
  • Sport fencing (not what I'd personally call a martial art, but...)
  • Military fight training (many different varieties)

...and so on.
Also, please consider the historic practice of HEMA (as opposed to the modern reconstruction).
Are you seriously saying that the examples I've listed above, don't have drills (or that they don't have a name for them)? ...or at least they didn't, until they saw Asian martial arts?
All of the above mentioned arts, have drills! They have had them for as long as practice in them, has existed!
The HEMA manuals and treatises that modern reconstructions of the arts are based on, are full of various drills (none of which are called kata, in said manuals/treatises, but often referred to by such terms as "play", "drill" or "flourish")

What you wrote was not just ignorant, but also very foolish ...and offensive.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 20:46, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

My apologies, I actually read that in a digital encyclopedia and naively added it into the article. The encyclopedia in question had quite a few other mistakes, like saying martial arts are "originally from Asia". In my ignorance I simply assumed that the statement on kata being adopted was true because I was less aware of the concept in Europe. Very sorry, I didn't mean to cause any offense. And just for the record, I do regard all the systems you mentioned as martial arts, although I personally prefer to call them fighting systems. Anyway, thanks for correcting me. Morinae (talk) 13:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I may have overreacted a bit, but...
I find the idea that "martial arts" is an Asian thing is very annoying. It is, sadly, a rather widespread idea. People generally don't consider things like wrestling, boxing or European sword-fighting, to be martial arts. This is especially frustrating, given that the word "martial art" is one that was invented long before the introduction of eastern martial arts to Europe, and was thus only really used for the European arts I mention above, until then.
There is no sense in using the word "fighting systems". That is a term that means exactly the same as martial art, after all. Well, there is one way in which "fighting system" may be preferable: Martial art means an art of Mars (the god of war), i.e. an art of war. Thus this makes "martial art", in it's strict etymological meaning, slightly wrong for non-battlefield fighting ...but that is only if you consider it as having to adhere to that strict meaning. I would consider any fighting art, to be a martial art. I do, however, consider that stuff that has no real connection to fighting, such as kendo, sport fencing or tai chi, shouldn't be called martial arts (though, on Wikipedia articles, I accept them as such, as per policy). To include those, would be to make the term so loose as to become almost without meaning.
...oh, and BTW: Which digital encyclopaedia? I am curious to know of one (aside from Wikipedia) that mentions HEMA.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 22:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your rephrasing of the section BTW. It made it clearer and more succinct.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 22:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
It was Encarta, not sure of the version though. It didn't specifically mention HEMA, but was pretty skewed towards Asian styles. Any reader unfamiliar with non-Asian martial arts would have thought all such systems come from Asia and everything else is Asian-derived. I agree with you that it's extremely annoying, which is why in my edits I have always tried to make general articles like the martial arts timeline neutral by adding information on Africa, Europe, Brazil and the Middle East, even though these are not really my forte. And what I meant was that, outside the wikipedia, I prefer to use "fighting systems" or sometimes "fighting arts" for what are usually termed martial arts, the reason being the same as your opinion on kendo, etc. Of course, this has nothing to do with where the style comes from, simply what it was designed to be used for. So for example I would call European poleaxe combat a "martial art" but would prefer to call taichi a "fighting art". Naturally I don't extend such usage to the wikipedia since it is only my personal opinion. Morinae (talk) 15:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh, it didn't mention HEMA? So... it basically said that non-Asian arts, in general, adopted kata from Asia? That is less interesting, but they still made a very bad error, so I might look into it anyway.
I don't understand what you mean by "fighting art", though. How could tai chi possibly be called a fighting art? In what way does it involve fighting?
As I see it European poleaxe combat is a martial art and a fighting art, as is Kenjutsu, jujutsu, wrestling, stick fighting and so on. You might argue that some arts, which use purely civilian weapons, should be called fighting arts rather than martial arts, because they are not used in war (though, as I've said, I don't see a reason for this. I see the terms as having, essentially, identical meaning). Kendo and sport fencing are sports (at most, you might call them "combat sports", as they involve hitting each other ...well in sport fencing it's not really hitting, as much as touching, but...), kyudo is meditation with a bow in your hand and tai chi... I don't know what to call that. Certainly not a fighting or martial art. Aikido... Again, I dunno what to call it. It's not a martial or fighting art, it's not meditation and it's not a sport.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 00:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Indian wrestling[edit]

See here. truth be told I made that disambig after reading the term in "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" and had no idea what it meant. It may be archaic now but then Douglas Adams often used archaic terminology. Serendipodous 17:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

quoit disambiguates to chakram[edit]

This needs to be confirmed with "quoit" bold in the intro section of Chakram, or else it if the disambiguation page is wrong, the direction to go to chakram needs to be removed from there. Since you reverted my edits without discussion please fix this in a way you can support. But please do not leave it so that people following the disambiguation page have no confirmation. The only reason I felt there was enough proof to make the edit is that one of the picture captions called them "quoit". If "quoit" is used as a synonym in English, even if only historically, it needs to be in bold and the usage (whether rare, historic, or inexact) described. If it is not a synonym the picture caption and and diambiguation page need to be cleaned up. I am not going to edit war with anyone, so do not expect me to edit the article again. But I will move this to the article talk page if you are not going to fix it yourself.BirgitteSB 16:01, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Quoit in English refers to the ring used in the game of quoits. Because of the chakram's similarity to this ring, the British sometimes historically referred to it as a "war-quoit". Some English writings even just translate the word as "discus". That caption is only using the word quoit descriptively, in the same way that some authors may describe it as "a steel ring used for throwing". This does not make the word ring synonomous with chakram. I have made a little correction to the disambig and added the term war-quoit to the lead of the chakram article, but I don't think it needs to be in bold. If you feel otherwise, feel free to change it or tell me what you think needs to be adjusted. Morinae (talk) 14:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I think "war-quoit" would be perfectly fine for the synonym (slight preference for bold, but not a big deal). BTW I was came across this looking into "Jowar Singh the Sikh procured sabre, quoit, and mace,". Lots of people come to Wikipedia when looking into out-of-date texts, so historical usages are important. I appreciate your clarifications to the article. BirgitteSB 02:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Re: Gatka[edit]

Hi, I was just reading your article on Gatka and I was confused by this section, which seems at odds with Jat Sikh article. It appears it was Sikhism that influenced Jats into adopting Martial Arts rather than the other way around. The Jats have always been hardy but not known for Martial Arts. The closest way of describing a Jat would be the Toshiro Mifune character as Kikuchiyo in Seven Samurai. Secondly reading through the references, I don't think they stand up to WP:Reliable. Thanks (talk) 13:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for any confusion caused by my unclear writing. The Jats have always typically been regarded as shudra but there are those who claim they were of degraded kshatriya origin. This is usually not taken seriously and is generally seen as the 18th-century Jat kings' method of hiding their more humble origins. As far as I can tell, the Jat had never been associated with martial arts prior to the Sikh era. But regardless of their origins, it is true that the Jats became more war-like from the 18th century onwards, or at least those Jats who converted to Sikhism did. As for the sources, all the citations I've provided are books so I'd say they're reliable. My main concern has been the low quantity of the sources rather than the quality, since there don't seem to be enough. If any of the sources provided don't stand up to scrutiny, please point them out and I'll do what I can. Anyway I'll try to fix up the section. Morinae (talk) 08:48, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Martial arts[edit]

I think we lost some good info correcting the last POV insertions. I reverted to an earlier version - could you recheck that what you intended to remove is gone. I wasn't reverting you but you may have got caught in the cross-fire.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I preferred this older version as well but I was hesitant to revert that far in case it resulted in missing info. I'll just fix a little grammatical error. Morinae (talk) 10:09, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Great thanks. I was going to revert yesterday but had visions of an edit war. That old canard how old Alexander introduced MA to China.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


Patience is a virture. I would leave it be a week and re-visit. This looks like a POV obsessed SPA crazy.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I've been quite hasty with the reverts hoping it might spur a reply on their talk page. I'll leave this one alone for a while. Morinae (talk) 09:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I reverted the edits once again and put a warning on his talk page. I don't think the editor understands what the problem is and one would like to bring him into the fold - but it is hard.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I give up (have tried once again). Let me know when you are back and I will help but I am not in the mood to wrestle alone.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Sorry I've been inactive here for so long. Am I too late? It seems the article has shortened been to only include referenced material. Sources on tomoi are difficult to come by but I do have a few. I think removing all unsourced info isn't really improving the article though. Morinae (talk) 07:25, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Welcome back. I did not do the massive trim - that came out of the blue. Did not fight it since I was getting pissed off with the above. It may be that the trim was a reaction to the edit war but I don't think it was necessary or desirable either. The trim itself could be reverted perhaps with a few more references tossed in.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

It seems he's at it again. With all the sources now, it looks like nothing was removed but the editor continues to add in those same awkwardly-written paragraphs. Aside from conflict resolution, I'm unsure of what the proper course of action would be here. Morinae (talk) 17:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


Thank you for your attention and edit on kris article, actually many of your edit are true, especially in non-Javanese perspective of kris making and general terms and style. However in this specific empu or pandai besi terms, with my half-Javanese background, I just try to emphasize the honorary title empu in contrast to common pandai besi (ironsmith). On article improvements, certainly! if there are any other edits and improvements on the article you could add and provides, please do so. I greatly appreciate your contributions, please go ahead. Cheers. Gunkarta  talk  15:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Same issue[edit]


I saw your comment here regarding that nonsensically created category [1] He/she absolutely hasn't grasped what the termination Indo-Persian means, which is nothing more than the mingling of Indian and Persian culture during the Mughal times (hundreds of years ago) What he's doing is simpy labeling every weapon made either in India, Turkey, Iran etc as "Indo-Persian". This is extremely wrong and wishful thinking.

I suggest nominating the category for deletion asap.

Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 18:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Hey! Its been some time since our last communication (I'm really busy usually irl), but I moved the page. If he'll revert it (which I sincerely, sincerely doubt) I'll bring it to WP:ANI, and trust me, he'll lose that as theres no such thing as Indo-Persian weaponry. Its pure historical bogus, plain nonsense basically. Just wanted to let you know. If you see any of his other edits that include the addition of this stuff, please revert it, if you have the time. :-)
Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 13:56, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Indonesian martial arts[edit]

Hi Morinae, thank you for your attention. I'm really glad that you have an interest in Indonesian martial arts. Please do contribute and fix any parts of the article that you think might need some improvement, explanation, correction or elaboration. Looking forward for your contribution. Cheers... Gunkarta  talk  11:41, 21 September 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) 16:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 17[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Silat, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Minangkabau (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) 09:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Morinae. 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)

Disambiguation link notification for April 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Gatka (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Lathi
Swordsmanship (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Hittite

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 27[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kuntao, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Shaolin (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) 09:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)