User talk:Pikipiki

A welcome from Emersoni

Hello, Pikipiki, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

If you haven't already, drop by the New user log and tell others a bit about yourself.
Always sign your posts on talk pages! That way, others will know who left which comments.
The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
Simplified Ruleset
How to edit a page
Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
Picture tutorial
How to write a great article
Naming conventions
Manual of Style
Wikipedia Glossary

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Though we all make mistakes, here is what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Enjoy your stay with Wikipedia!

Emersoni 05:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD

Why did you create Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foundation to Support Animal Protection? There is no article by the name Foundation to Support Animal Protection, nor has it ever existed. JFW | T@lk 23:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please do not edit other peoples' comments on talk pages such as on Talk:Rebbe [1]. JFW | T@lk 23:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a redirect to PETA for the article, and deleted the no-longer-orphaned AfD, so not to lead to confusion. Rockpocket 09:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metzitzah

Hi, it’s me bloger:

Thank you, very much for editing the addition by me in the article. You’ve done a superb job.

And sorry I didn’t realize until now that you helped, or else I would have thanked you earlier

Thank you again

Bloger 22:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chofetz Chaim

There is no reliable and verifiable source I know of for the "Poupko" claim, so it cannot be added. -- Avi 03:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Herpes-Neonatal herpes

Please do not revert my edits. I will post sources over the next week or so. Those in the know, know I know. Thank you. pikipiki 18:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brit milah

Hi. I have reverted your most recent edit from Brit Milah. Please review Wikipedia's no original research policy. Wikipedia does not publish original research (OR) or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions or experiences. If you wish to argue that whatever testing the NYS did or did not do is "curious" or that the impetus behind the protocol is "misunderstood" you need to provide direct citations from a reliable source to that effect. We are here to write an encyclopedia, not to provide the Opinions Of Wikipedia Editors. A lot of new editors don't understand some of our content policies, so it is a common mistake. Don't take it personally. Regards, Nandesuka (talk) 13:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Herpes simplex

Hi there, please feel free to add any useful info to the herpes simplex page that you feel is missing - and, yes, please do add all relevant references that you have, it will make life so much easier when we start pushing towards WP:FAR. The drug stuff I am less familiar with, so would appreciate an expert coming in to help. As far as the neonatal herpes is concerned, I think the section is getting really large, and wouldn't want to expand it on the main herpes simplex article, but it may warrant a page of its own if you think you have much more information to add - then we could reduce the section on the main article with a link to a neonatal herpes page - what do you think? ~ Ciar ~ _{(Talk to me!)} 00:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I just wanted to let you know there is a discussion being held with the individual that removed the risk factor data to see if we can come to some consensus over how the offending sentence could be worded instead of having an edit war flare up. I moved it (from Nbauman's talk page) to the herpes simplex talk page for others to contribute to the discussion. My thinking is, if the information can be misinterpreted/misunderstood in any way, maybe we can improve the wording to make it easier - not everyone is familiar with risk factors and what they mean, I guess. All the best, ~ Ciar ~ _{(Talk to me!)} 14:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

Hi Pikipiki, I don't use Bibtex myself, but this citation template filler claims to convert Bibtex to wiki format - just scroll past the google template filler to find the Bibtex part. I usually using the Diberri template filler with pubmed IDs but have used the Google filler too on the odd ocassion. They work pretty well for a single citation (no batch citations as far as I can tell). Hope this helps, ~ Ciar ~ _{(Talk to me!)} 15:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darn it, I just found that myself and was all proud of myself for being able to help out a fellow editor. And you beat me to it by a week, Ciar! GOOD JOB! :) Livitup (talk) 18:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moshe David Tendler

You have a couple of responses to your question at . I have edited your comments there and at Talk:Moshe David Tendler because they don't comply with the Biographies of living persons policy. Please don't make statements like that about living people. Even if not in the main article, statements about living people should be neutral and sourced. You can of course question the neutrality of the article and suggest changes based on different sources, but don't make contentious statements like "he is an evil man". --Beloved Freak 12:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first external link contains six pages of his lies in his own words straight off the YU website. In the book "Boychiks in the hood" (page200) in referring to the Lubavitch Chasidim that were hunted, persecuted, arrested, prosecuted, imprisoned, exiled, tortured, and murdered by the communists for continuing to practice and teach Judaism, Tendler says "Stalin ignored them", "so when perestrokia dawned thousands of Lubavitchers cames crawling out of the woodwork". His attacks on Ultra Orthodox Judaism permeate his lectures and he has gone as far testifying against a Jew who became religious (chasidic)in prison and just wanted to grow a beard in hasidic tradition.<http://dhengah.org/mbp/tendlercourt.htm> He brags in a lecture how he called the health department on a mohel who was not yet accused or implicated in any wrongdoing, and he slanders this well respected ultra orthodox mohel by name, claiming he infected "several children, two of whom died."<http://dhengah.org/mbp/TendlerAlternatetranscript.htm> When no investigation had yet been made, and in fact only one child had died. His attack on 3000 year old Jewish ritual circumcision was co-ordinated with colleagues who wrote other papers citing five factors that denote a textbook case of maternally transmitted herpes and they claim the these factors implicate the mohel. No one in neonatal herpes research for the last 40 years has applied these factors like Tendler and company and neither Tendler nor any of the co-authors ever did a paper on neonatal herpes. I stand by my statements. pikipiki (talk) 08:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shalom!

Hi, I'm L'Aquatique, and I'm wondering if I can't offer my assistance to you. I've noticed you've been involved in an editing conflict at Rabbi Moshe David Tendler's article and I hope that with my help we can sort the whole thing out. I've looked over the information briefly, and here's what I see going on: there is a portion of the article that you disagree with, and so you have removed it multiple times. Another editor has been replacing it, along with removing reference needed tags, and once, refs themselves. Now, I am not incredibly familiar with the Rabbi, so I can't tell which one of you is correct- although I've found it's rarely a question of correct and incorrect- but I see some problems with both your and the other editor's conduct that I'd like to address.
Firstly, I think you would have a lot more luck in discussions if you hold off from calling R. Tendler an evil, lying man. As I said, I've never met the man, he may well be evil, but Wikipedia is not the place to make such claims and it weakens your argument. We all have biases, myself included, but we have to try very hard not to let them get the better of us while we are editing. Also, such arguments could be considered uncivil and repeated use of them could lead to a block on your part, which would be a bummer because I have no doubt you are a good guy with important stuff to contribute.
Secondly, we need to remember that because the Rabbi is a living person, things get incredibly sticky. Wikipedia could be held liable, legally, for what is written on our pages, so we must do our very best to keep them as accurate as possible. If that means leaving out something that we personally know is true, but can't prove, then so be it. Unfortunately, that's the nature of the beast. I'd also encourage you to read our policy on reliable sources, because it will help you find good, quality references with which to back up your data, which in turn will strengthen your argument.
I look forward to hearing back from you on this, and hope I can help you out. Good shabbos- L'Aquatique[talk] 02:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input. I would like to state that I began on a civil tone. If you look at all my other WP contributions, none of them have ever been removed. They've may have been polished a little, but they're solid. They editors that have fought me on Tendler have no other contributions. They have deleted my request for citations several times instead of providing the information requested. When that happened a few times over a period of three months, I removed the questionable statement. They seek to present MDT as the successor of his illustrious father-in-law, but ignore the facts that MDT contradicted and ridiculed his father in law when he saw fit. My adversary has several times removed my well documented statements as well as the references thereto. While I understand WP concern about getting sued, I have no problem indemnifying WP because truth is a defense. Post a notice of service and I'll forward my personal info to WP and be happy to testify and prove in the open forum of an American court that the man is a liar and a fraud. Read the first external reference. That's 6 pages of the man's lies in own words. Thank you for interest and support.pikipiki (talk) 08:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Study depiction

My personal opinions as to Bris Mila notwithstanding, the article cannot poison the well in any direction. making those remarks about the doctors is non-encyclopedic and an NPOV violation, even if they may be true in that these doctors are new to the field. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 14:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But specifically identifying doctors as not experienced in the field is POV. As for halacha, while I've learned hilchos mila in the Yoreh Deah, I do not consider myself an expert on them, as I have never delved into the Chasam Sofer, R'Akiva Eiger's, Darchei Teshuva, etc. I spent many more years on Shechita, Melicha, Taaroves, Basar B'chalav, Nida, Aveilus, Mikvaos, etc. Regardless of the halachic requirements for metztizah and the applicability of using a tube as opposed to direct oral contact (which is approved by most heintege poskim) we cannot let our personal beliefs color how we write the article. To poison the well by painting the doctors in a poor light is inappropriate. -- Avi (talk) 14:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Doctors are not new to the field of neonatal herpes, they are old to the field of attacks on chareidim. Lorrie Rubin wrote the first article cited several papers on neonatal herpes and then goes on to contradict all of them. The following two papers by his friends continue in the same vein. Gideon Koren, removed from his endowed chair, fired as dept head, fined, suspended, and disciplined for falsifying a medical article, failure to disclose conflicts of interests, and conduct unbecoming a doctor in the case of Nancy Olivieri,(U of Toronto Bulletin April 24,2000 p.4) has published ten articles against traditional ritual circumcision, as have others including Dr Tendler. The doctors falsely painting chareidim in a poor light is OK, me pointing out these people have no expertise in neonatal herpes and contradict 40 years of research on the subject is not? Simply put, the papers are an attack on chareidim. They managed to get printed? So did Dr. Arthur Steinschneider in a paper that was used for 22 years to shield child murderers. (See the death of innocents by Robert First and the May 2, 2006 science editorial in the NY Times entitled "For Science's Gatekeepers, a Credibility Gap" By Dr. L.K. Altman) pikipiki (talk) 15:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You do need a source to offer editorial opinions on sourced material, and particularly for things like an opinion on the qualifications of the authors of a published study. Wikipedia is particularly concerned about unsourced criticisms of individuals that might affect their reputations, such as claims that people aren't qualified in the subject they publish about. (See WP:BLP). Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 16:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't actually say they were unqualified. I merely pointed out that they choose to publish in an arena in which they never published before or after and only in regard to a negative viewpoint on ultra orthodox circumcision. I could said they lied from beginning to end and give the example that they say that the Chasam Sofer, who died in 1839 was influenced by Ignacz Semmelweis' 1847 discovery of disease transmission and therefore permitted the use of the tube that didn't exist until 1887. But I didn't do that. At some point it will come to light who these people are and what there true intentions were. In the interim read up on neonatal herpes (not on wikipedia, most of which are my contributions, but on pubmed.gov) After you review a few hundred papers by Nahmias, Josey, Roizman, Whitley, Kimberlin, Arvin, Yeager, Prober, Mertz, Z Brown, E Brown, Stanberry, Ashley, and Corey, then read the articles attacking metzitzah. Tell what, if anything indicates, these cases are postnatal herpes. Zero. Every single factor points to maternally transmitted herpes. But the mother is not discussed. Only the mohel is discussed, so the only outcomes possible is the mohel is or is not the source, the articles conclude the mohel is probably the source and avoid every avenue of testing that would prove otherwise. To be charitable we could say the authors are ignorant and extremely poor researchers. The problem is they cite sources and then say the exact opposite. That is falsification. Under the circumstances I choose not to be so charitable. How many examples do you want? pikipiki (talk) 15:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I, or anyone, may agree with you, you still cannot post your own analyses in wikipedia, as that is a violation of WP:OR. Further, you cannot poison the well against the researchers. All you may do is quote other reliable and verifiable sources. Find them and add them, but please do not violate wiki policy and guideline to promote one point of view without sufficient and accurate external sourcing. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 15:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lukeford etc.

Hi. Lukeford, awareness center, Vicki Polin, etc. are not considered reliable sources for anything other than their own articles. They are activist blogs/sites, not impartial reporters of fact. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 07:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP

Making statements such as "Despite....Tendler has never appeared..." is irrelevant to the article, unsourced, and a classic case of a WP:BLP violation. Please only add verifiable, reliably sourced, properly stated, and documented information, keeping the principles of WP:BLP in mind. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 07:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Civility warning

Regarding your comments on User talk:Avraham: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 13:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tendler et al

A few points.

Aron Tendler is still a Rabbi in LA. The article does not mention if he is practicing as a pulpit Rabbi or not, which is completely accurate.
Mordechai Tendler did edit the later volumes of Igros Moshe. It is why many of us have issues with anything past Chelek Vav.
No matter what you or I think of Mordechai or Aron Tendler, WP:BLP does not allow unsourced negative allegations to remain in articles.
This has nothing to do with the logical fallacy of poisoning the well, this has to do with the wikipedia guideline of BLP: "Biographical material must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research, particularly if it is contentious." This is regardless of the factual nature of the material.

Lastly, I must in good faith let you know that further violations of wikipedia policies and guidelines may result in measures being taken to protect the project. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 13:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Avi

1) Half truths are completely correct and designed to mislead. If I say you haven't visited a prosititute in the last two years, it's probably 100% correct, but it gives the impression of something else. The man resigned after 22 years as the pulpit Rabbi of Shaarey Zedek, that's a fact. The man is no longer in Shaarey Zedek or YULA, That's a fact. The man resigned amidst allegations of sexual impropriety, that's a fact. I do not address the particulars of the allegations nor whether they are true or not. That's why they're called allegations. Repeat: The man resigned from Shaary Zedek after 22 years as Senior Rabbi amid allegations of impropriety. That's all fact without personal analysis. It may stop you from edited out fact.

2) Yes Mordechai Tendler did help with SOME of the later volumes, which is why I Inserted the word "some" That you removed. He was not the general editor of Igros Moshe he did not edit all or most of Igros he edited "some of Igros moshe which is why I chnaged "Tendler helped prepare and edited Feinstein's responsa for publication in the 'Igrot series" to Tendler helped prepare and edit some of Feinstein's responsa for publication in the Igrot Moshe series." That you so graciously reverted.

3) My edits were not unsourced. In your supreme wisdom, you alone determined that the two sources I cited, stating allegations from numerous sources were unreliable.

4) Allegations were made, that's all I said. How do you define verifiable? there's a documentary on you tube? Pick up the phone and call anyone in Shaarey Zedek. Or would that be original reasearch? If there is no record of Mordechai Tendler testifying in any court proceedings is that "verifiable" because it says so in the court record, or is that original research because I cared to look and you didn't?

And by all means please protect the article. It might bring needed attention to your over zealous attempt to maintain "neutrality" in favor of Tendler. ala George Orwell "All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others." -Animal Farm pikipiki (talk) 06:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please review WP:NOT. Wikipedia's purpose is not to disseminate the truth. That is a misunderstanding that many have.
I agree, which is why I changed it, on the day I removed your improper edits, to "various volumes" see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mordecai_Tendler&diff=234990859&oldid=234945503 (I corrected the spelling today)
Those websites have been discussed in the past especially when we were discussing Vicki Polin. They are classic attack websites, and are completely unreliable in and of themselves. If you follow the trail back to reliable sources (Polin quoting the Daily News, for example) that would be acceptable, as long as it is in the bounds of both WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE.
What you bring is irrelevant. Wikipedia may not be used as a forum to denigrate anyone. There is nothing encyclopedic about Tendler's appearing or not appearing in court. So even if you find a verifiable and reliable source, there is strong argument for removal of that unimportant piece of information which is being used solely to attack Tendler. Have the bloggers appeared in court? Who knows, who cares; they all have lawyers anyway.
Lastly, on a personal note, having nothing to do with wikipedia, entering information on wikipedia is not a dispensation for the laws of לשון הרע ורכילות.

The article may need to protected, and your editing rights may need to be curtailed, if you continue to violate wikipedia policy and guideline. If you have information you feel needs to be added to the article, by all means, drop me a line on my talk page or e-mail me and I will be glad to discuss it with you. If you don't like me, use the articles talk page, and use WP:JEW. But continued improper editing and violations of WP:BLP, WP:V, and WP:NOT need to stop. Thank you, and a guten chodesh. -- Avi (talk) 14:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pikipiki. I left this message for you on Avi's talk page. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi were can I send you something privet, like an e-mail or something? Bloger (talk) 19:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have enabled e-mail through wikipedia.pikipiki (talk) 07:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Wikistress

A tag has been placed on Wikistress, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article that does not provide sufficient context to identify its subject. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the article and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Wikistress

A tag has been placed on Wikistress, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, image description page, image talk page, mediawiki page, mediawiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, user talk or special page from the main/article space.

If you can fix the redirect to point to a mainspace page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your reasoning on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted Wikistress because it is not an article and does not belong in article namespace. If you had a hard time finding the Wikistress template, creating an redirect in article space is not the solution; besides, as far as I know, no one else has had this difficulty before. If you see a Wikistress meter or anything else on some user's page, you can easily get it for yourself by clicking "edit this page" and seeing the code. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ernst A. Lehmann, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hindenburg (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) 08:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Helix (TV series) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

man, due to either collecting [[royalties]] on his work or by suing everyone that stole his ideas (including 7 Dracula movies made between 1931 and 2001. That would be the case unless of course [[

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:35, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected. Thanks! pikipiki (talk) 00:59, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Cached copy of the 2006 NYS circumcision protocol regarding the prevention of neonatal herpes.pdf

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Cached copy of the 2006 NYS circumcision protocol regarding the prevention of neonatal herpes.pdf, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 16:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Cached copy of the 2006 NYS circumcision protocol regarding the prevention of neonatal herpes.pdf

A tag has been placed on File:Cached copy of the 2006 NYS circumcision protocol regarding the prevention of neonatal herpes.pdf requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F10 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a file that is not an image, sound file or video clip (e.g. a Word document or PDF file) that has no encyclopedic use.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 16:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zeppelin6 htm webpage.pdf listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Zeppelin6 htm webpage.pdf, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. —innotata 05:18, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Pikipiki. 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)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Pikipiki. 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)[reply]