User talk:Alucard (Dr.)

To better keep conversations together...
If you leave a message to me here, I will reply here. (Start a new topic)
If I have posted on your talk page, I will watch for replies there.

WikiProject Munich

Would you be interested in helping out atWikiProject Munich? And you don't have to know anything about Munich. Maybe you could help out on bringing Munich-related articles up to Wikipedia Policies and guidlines standards or maybe another area where you could help improve Munich-related articles. Kingjeff 23:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Small world

It's a small world... you're in the US, I live in New Zealand, yet we both went to the same school (I used to live in Croughton, Northants)! :) Grutness...wha? 05:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DMOZ links

Hi. I thought I should let you know that your project to add DMOZ links to dozens of location articles is somewhat controversial. Wikipedia's External links guidelines call for avoiding commercial external links. DMOZ directories commonly contain links to commercial sites, so by extension, one would think that DMOZ links would be unwelcome. However, on the contrary, the guidelines say "Rather than creating a long list of external links, editors should consider linking to a related category in the Open Directory Project."

Nevertheless, DMOZ links have been discussed on before on Wikipedia talk:External links, drawing some comments such as "A Dmoz link should be a last resort, not a first...", and I have started a new discussion based in part on your work.

Please understand I am not saying you're doing anything wrong-- it seems clear that your additions are being done in good faith, and they are certainly not in any obvious violation of present policy. I just thought you ought to be made aware of the discussion, as you might want to contribute to it; you also might want to slow down on this work for a bit, since there is some chance that the consensus will go against DMOZ links.

I'm sorry to drop this probably unsettling comment on your Talk page. Let me try to offset it by offering my Welcome!

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

Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! . -- Mwanner | Talk 22:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note - I had read all those documents before I did any editing, and will keep referring to them as I learn more. I know that from the ODP Wikipedia article there are a lot of "haters" out there, and I obviously feel that the ODP can be a very useful resource, along side Wikipedia. I will post in that discussion. Sorry to have stirred things up again. Alucard (Dr.) 12:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A curious New York Edit

Please take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=New_York&diff=prev&oldid=97866461 - am unsure how to proceed on this one. There have been several edits since then, so a simple revert wouldn't do, but I'm really not sure about whether to put the text back, request some sort of sources and references or what.... Alucard (Dr.) 21:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm, tricky. Well, in this case, the editor is correct: there doesn't seem to be any verifiable or even reliable source to back up those statistics. You could replace it and add {{fact}} to request a citation (probably starting a talk page thread, while you're at it), or you could go and try to find such a citation yourself. I might recommend the latter of the two, but it's your call. If you run into problems, don't forget dispute resolution, probably starting at requests for third opinion, for now. Hope that helps! Luna Santin 22:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Content disputes are pretty much the bane of the wiki. ;) Once we have magic solutions for those, we can fix about anything, I think. The stuff they're taking out does look unsourced, and WP:V has a few things to say about removing unsourced material. In recent months, especially, there's been a bit of a movement towards removing anything of the sort -- used to be, we'd tag it and wait, but the backlog on the "wait" part of that has been dragging pretty far behind. When all else fails, I try to assume good faith and do my best to nudge everyone over to the talk page to work out a solution. Luna Santin 22:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again - I think I am going to let a more experienced editor fight this battle. Alucard (Dr.) 22:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

I just wanted to thank you for keeping a sharp eye on the "Tokugawa shogunate" article by removing the "contributions" of Mr. 168.212.187.23. Consider yourself "bronze starred".Writtenright 23:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)Writtenright[reply]

You're welcome! Alucard (Dr.) 12:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cities on the Great Lakes

I notice that you are adding cities to the category. What is the criteria for inclusion? I know of many small cities in Wisconsin & Michigan that you have not added. You better put some criteria on the category page, or else it will fill up with every tiny hamlet/township/burg. Cheers! Royalbroil^T : C 18:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't create the category, so I am adding localities that are designated as "City" in the WP article that are directly located on one of the Great Lakes. Hamlets, towns, townships, etc obviously do not make the cut. Hope this helps. -- Alucard (Dr.) 18:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have added some text to the category talk page - hopefully others will contribute. meanwhile I will meander along, adding stuff as I find them - feel free to do the same. -- Alucard (Dr.) 19:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oswego County, New York

You don't know the status of Pennelville, and yet you want to add it to the County page. Maybe you should first find out what the status is, and then perhaps add it one of the TOWN pages in the county (hint: try Schroeppel, New York). What do you know! It is listed there as a hamlet! Perhaps that would be a good place to start a new link, not the county page. But then, why? Do you think this community merits its own page? What the heck, one more stub! Stepp-Wulf 01:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with what you say, which is why I created a county template which includes all the hamlets and have linked to it on the page, instead of the listing that was there before. This seems to bring it in line with what has been done on the various other counties. If a page is created down the road, this would be an ideal place to link to it. I hope that this compromise resolves the issue. Thanks. -- Alucard (Dr.) 12:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NICE WORK, Stepp-Wulf 01:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks. -- Alucard (Dr.) 12:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ODP/DMOZ Broken Links

I am an editor at the Open Directory Project, also known as DMOZ. The WP policy on External Links in articles (WP:EL) talks about the potential of using a link to the ODP category as an alternative to listing many ELs in an article. While I do not want to debate getting into the pros and cons of this issue here (there are plenty of other places for that) what I would like to do is to address one of the issues that I have heard brought up - that the corresponding category has many dead, redirected or otherwise broken links.

If you find a broken link, I would invite you to drop a note into this section, and I will deal with it as soon as I can. please let me know the category in the ODP (if you could give me a URL to it that would be much appreciated), and the name that the ODP uses for that site. Note that I will not list new sites in categories, nor will I enter into debates about sites. I also will not give the status on sites that have been suggested - this is purely for letting me know of a broken link.

If you add to here, I will remove the request once I have dealt with it.

Thanks very much for your help! -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 14:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shambala

Regarding your edit to Shambala (song), please direct me to the Wikiepdia guidelines regarding your edit so I can observe this guideline in the future. Thanks. House of Scandal 19:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. WP:EL states that we should not link to Sites that violate the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations - the lyrics site in question had no notice along the lines of "used by permission" and it is not owned by the publisher of the music. It is, therefore, a copyright violation site. Hope this clarifies, and thanks for asking! -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 19:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link Removal

I am wondering why you deleted this link from the article on New York? You claimed that the link went to page with search engine results. Actually if you went to the link and looked at you would find that it is not actually a page with search engine results on it. I will restore the link but please be sure not perform hasteful edits without researching the topic first. Eric 20:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if you consider it hasteful - I did look around and made my decision. Will get another opinion on this. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 23:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is okay, feel free to get a second opinion. Have a good evening, Eric 01:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mistaken reversion

hi - check out my other edits to Feminism. Those nasty little IP vandals were messing up the page even as I reverted it!

andy 14:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC) :)

Andy, but you were reverting by adding other nonsense text, which is why I thought you were "in" in it - apologies. If they continue to vandalize, rather than edit-warring with them, I suggest you apply to get them blocked. By continuing to edit their changes, they are getting the attention they may be looking for. Good luck! -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 14:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred

You are quite right, all those Alfreds should never have been on the dab page. Most accidental links to Alfred are likely to be for one of the places, rather than someone with the first name Alfred. CarolGray 17:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for that clarification - I will use it as an example the next time I see something like that. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 17:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A quiet word of advice - there has been a lot of debate on this issue and there are editors who feel the Manual of Style is too restrictive. Some people are working very hard creating lists of people who share the same name. Which is fine, but... "John Smith" and "William Smith" are not disambiguations of "Smith". The new page I created - Alfred (name) - is not a disambiguation page, it is an article about the name, including a list of people. If anyone queries your edits, I'd like to suggest you refer them to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Examples of individual entries that should not be created. Happy editing! CarolGray 20:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that makes a ton of sense. And I completely agree - there is a page about the Name, which can include all notable people who have that name, and there is a disambiguation page that deals with pages that might only be referred to by that name. If you wouldn't mind, could you take a look at something I did, based on this advice, and see if it looks ok to you: Tabitha and Tabitha (name). Thanks. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 13:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heroin

Thank you for your vandalism revert on this article. I must rv there at least 3 or 4 times a day. I don't know why people think it's so amusing to vandalise it, but then again, Lion is also a big vandal target, so there you are. Jeffpw 20:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome - I just happened upon it in the Recent Change list... -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 20:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi regarding Priyanka and Kareena

What I have written is absolute truth! The fact about priyanka's father appeared in Mumbai based Magazine "Savyy". You mean to say that I mustn't write about pedophilic tendencies of a certain man thus jeopardizing emotional lives of many! Should I take it that you support such kind of people!

sheulibose@yahoo.com

For something like this to appear in Wikipedia you need to provide reliable citations for the information, then it will not get reverted. Please take a look at WP:CITE, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Attribution for more information on this sort of subject. Hope this helps. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 15:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cylon Monotheism

Why'd you revert the "Cylon Monotheism" section? The Cylon god is clearly referred to as He. Chiss Boy 21:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just left a note on your talk page about that! There is a discussion on the Talk page for BSG about that and there are differing opinions. Would like to reach a concensus there before we change things. The other point I reverted was that there were similarities to WESTERN monotheism you got rid of the western part, which was the whole key to the point. Hope this makes sense. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 21:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More on Cylon monotheism

Those traits are not unique to "Western" monotheisms. Also, the definition of Western Civilization isn't very clear. Chiss Boy 00:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my point is that they ARE monotheists, so they will show traits of monotheism... the point that I think they're trying to make is that they show similar traits to those of western monotheism... -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 05:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have put something on the article talk page about Western monotheisms. Basically, that those traits are not unique to what you type as Western monotheisms, and that (guessing) what you intend by Western monotheisms aren't even Western. Chiss Boy 20:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I have no problem with rewording it. It's just that the statement along the line of that Cylon monotheism has traits of monotheism is kind of a tautology. Thanks for working with me on this. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 20:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-vandalism on Geography of the United States

Just a friendly notice that the vandalism you reverted only covered one of 2 edits in a row on that article by the vandal. Its been fixed, but even if its a check after, you should do a glance over the history so vandalisms don't get lost in the history :) --Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 02:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up - I usually catch that. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 03:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

town/villiage

just seems poor form to have ibids running down the page--especially when it's not a part of the official name. perhaps it would look better if they were placed in columns with proper headings? --emerson7 | Talk 18:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That might work well, for sure. But since towns in NY state are areas, rather than conurbations, it makes sense to me to identify them. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 15:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Love the username

Especially given the fact that both our usernames technically have the same source. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:-) Glad you like it! -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 15:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia New York Meet-Up

Howdy! Please come to the First Annual New York Wikipedian Central Park Picnic. R.S.V.P. @ Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC --David Shankbone 21:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David, thanks for the invitation, but as I live at the opposite end of the state, I won't be able to make the trip, sorry. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 15:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

County spam

Hi, I am keeping the discussion here, since the thread on WT:WPSPAM is monitored by the spammer. We are trying to do something about it, but the current Linkwatcher (written by user:Shadow1) seems to have some problems (at least it had before the weekend). I have fed rules to user:COIBot and to user:Shadowbot. As soon as the problems have been solved, these additions should be reverted by Shadowbot and COIBot should tell us about new spammers right away. Hope this helps! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update, Dirk - very much appreciated. I can see the difficulty - no real pattern to the domain name, and different IPs. I'm just glad that something is being worked on! -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 14:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strangely enough it is not COIBot or Shadowbot, the linkwatcher simply does not see the links, so the bots don't see them either. But Shadow1 and I are working on the code. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem has been solved (with a bit of thanks to the spammer; the bots did not pick up the edit). All should be fine now! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand . . .

I posted this here because it relates more to personal opinion on guidelines than it does to the suitability of particular links.

Why should I follow a guideline I disagree with, and remove links that I think are valuable to readers? I feel very deeply that it would be dishonest to do so. I added them because I believe they are valuable, and I still do. Removing them myself suggests I care more about following procedures that I believe to be incorrect in order to make some people happy than I care about improving Wikipedia. GreenReaper 17:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are, of course, free to do whatever you want, so take this purely as my opinion, but when you become a WP editor, you implicitly agree to abide by the guidelines and consensus model. If you disagree with a guideline, then discuss how to have it changed, or do not edit. Blatantly disregarding something you disagree with is usually not regarded as being much of a team player, or being a positive contribution to the project, and will usually result in harsh reactions, as you have received. WP only works because a bunch of people agree to reach consensus on content and work within the "rules", or work to get them changed. Each person can have their own opinion on what makes Wikipedia "good". If everybody did exactly what they wanted, without regard to any group consensus, then chaos would ensue, and WP would be the worse for it. Hope this makes sense. I understand that you do probably do not agree with it, and that is your prerogative. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 18:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accusation of vandalism

I must admit I dont understand what you are accusing me of vandalizing this time! All my edits in the Albany, New York article are legitimate, I have not deleted anything but have changed several factual errors. Please let me know what you think I have done wrong, for I must admit I am ignorant of the technical things that have appeared on the message I just received. If you believe my facts are wrong, then please discuss them with me, I think there is an error somewhere. I just checked and what I believe you may have "reverted" back is incorrect information regarding the Albany International Airport. I put in information about its history and the fact that it is NOT managed by the CDTA but instead by a authority and owned by the county, these are facts that can be verified from the airports own website! Please stop accusing me of vandalism if you dont like the facts. This has been hurtful and unnecessary and spiteful. How can anyone change anything when they have the facts if someone comes along and changes and accuses them of vandalism?! 24.182.142.254 19:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not leave you the message this time - that was done by another editor. The warnings I gave to this IP address before were for making changes about the section on "Smallbany" - there is an ongoing discussion on the Talk page for the article that is trying to discuss attributable sources for the "fact" - these are required by Wikipedia. Somebody using your IP address was erasing portions of the discussion about it on the article's Talk page. Wikipedia requires any change or addition of information to be verifiable. Check out the link for further information on what that means. My suggestion to you, should you wish to change the section about "Smallbany" is to join the discussion on the talk page, rather than just making the changes to the article. Making direct changes to an portion of an article without joining in the discussion may be considered to be vandalism. What I gave you were standard warnings to hopefully make you stop making the changes directly and instead join with the consensus-building efforts. As for the airport stuff, I didn't revert the change or warn you about it. Maybe you could take that up with the editor that reverted it and left you the warning (SXT40) Hope this makes sense. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 23:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed this, I'll try to explain on the user's talk page. Thanks, Alucard! --SXT4^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 07:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

My sincere apologies for deviating into my opinion of another editor's actions at Talk:Photo editing#Comments on the references ... You're right in that we should focus on what needs to be done with the article there. --健次(derumi)^talk 20:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Strathairn

Your point on the copyvio is well taken, and have removed. What do you think about my suggestion that fan sites be specifically addressed? There does not seem to be much sentiment for doing so on the EL talk page, and I don't want to spin my wheels.--Mantanmoreland 16:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you will reach consensus on a blanket rule covering Fan Sites. I really think they need to be evaluated against WP:COPY, WP:EL and any other relevant policies on a case-by-case basis, like any other EL. I know it will probably result in all sorts of talk page debates, but that is the nature of the beast that is Wikipedia, I'm afraid. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 16:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surprisingly, there seems to be some sentiment for at least tackling the subject. We shall see.--Mantanmoreland 03:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on my RFC

Wait, let me get this straight... I objected to the calling of a Request for Mediation as contrary to standard Wikipedia rules on getting wide consensus and so forth, and you assume I am dissing you? As far as I know you did not show up as part of any call for mediation. My comments were to the effect that, in the past, when someone called for an official mediation editors with very short edit histories suddenly appeared out of nowhere, claimed that they were handling it without even asking me if I accepted them, and then proceeded to start acting like they were going to come up with the ultimate answer before they heard both sides. I fear that the mediation cabal sustem, where a single person can show up out of nowhere and declare themselves to be coming up with the answer all by themselves and expect everyone else to abide by their solitary opinion to be poor in the first place, especially when those mediators have no training and can just as easily be some frind of those involved who shows up only pretending to mediate. These comments have NOTHING to do with people like youself showing up and trying to help and not acting like their word is law. If you are using this as an example of how I am allegedly not assuming good faith you just demonstrated instead that you are assuming bad faith on my part. I don't know if my writing was ambiguous or if you just skimmed it and assumed I was referring to you, but either way you have completely misinterpreted the situation. DreamGuy 16:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely interpreted what you wrote as criticism of my attempts to resolve the issue (informal mediation). If you did not intend that then I will withdraw that part of my comments. If you wish and can confirm on the RfC talk page that those comments were not aimed at me, I will redact them. At best the way you laid out your comments it was ambiguous - believe me I read it several times and went away from the computer for a while so I could think about it before just posting a knee-jerk reaction. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 16:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Photo editing

You mean you already tried mediating that? Cool Blue^{talk to me} 16:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, Alucard, after doing a history check, I uncovered this. (And you've obviously read it before). Cool Blue^{talk to me} 18:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy 2

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy 2. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy 2/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel^(Talk) 20:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures of Jordan, New York

I've got plenty of pictures of Jordan and Central New York in general. I attempted to upload one of the Jordan Aqueduct. It is a page titled: Image:Jordan Aqueduct.jpg. I don't understand how to link it to the Jordan, New York page. Some assistance would be welcome. Once I understand the process, I'd like to upload other images. Mamlakahupo

I did get it linked, after pouring through the cheat sheet and the FAQs. Mamlakahupo

Syracuse re-opens for business...

Hi Dr. Alucard -- Just a note to claim that Wikipedia:WikiProject Syracuse, New York is at least somewhat revived, with a couple people contributing and a good number of new articles. See the new article list on the main webpage of the project. Hope you can return and participate! doncram (talk) 00:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Alucard (Dr.). You have new messages at Talk:Rip-off Britain.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi there. I've drastically altered the Rip-off Britain article and added some comments on the talk page. SimonTrew (talk) 18:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC) SimonTrew (talk) 18:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for War Doctor

On 23 November 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article War Doctor, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the War Doctor (played by John Hurt, pictured), introduced in "The Night of the Doctor", will be a "dark doctor" who will "bring an ancient battle to its devastating conclusion"? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 17:22, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for The Night of the Doctor

On 23 November 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Night of the Doctor, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the War Doctor (played by John Hurt, pictured), introduced in "The Night of the Doctor", will be a "dark doctor" who will "bring an ancient battle to its devastating conclusion"? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 17:23, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	For your work on War Doctor and The Night of the Doctor, thank you. — Cirt (talk) 20:24, 23 November 2013 (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) 13:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]