User talk:Backnumber1662

G'day!

G'day there, Backnumber1662, and welcome to Wikipedia! Good authors are always welcome on the project, and I hope you like the place and decide to stick around!

Sometimes new editors find it useful to review our "five pillars", all you need to know about editing in "wiki markup", or this detailed tutorial. The stuff we all really need to know is best summed up here: write from a neutral point of view, play nice with others, and don't let the rules get you down. If you have any questions or need any help, my talkpage is always open for business, or you can see Wikipedia:Newcomers help page. Here's a tip to start you off: if you type four tildes (~~~~) at the end of any messages you leave on talkpages (like this one) Wikipedia will automatically insert your name and the current date and time after your message. Cool, eh?

By the way, I'm going to take a punt in the dark and say you're Australian. If so, excellent! Aussies make good Wikipedians (yes, oh yes, we do). You may be interested in Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board, where Australian Wikipedians occasionally meet to try to help coordinate our efforts. Again, welcome to the project, and happy editing! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi 1662, I noticed on the Sydney Anglican article you mentioned apartheid having wide support, or something like that. Do you have any references for that? If it cannot be substanciated, it might get deleted. Cheers Echinoman 12:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The issue of apartheid that was raised here is currently being debated on the Sydney Anglican website at http://your.sydneyanglicans.net/community/viewtopic.php?t=2267 There seems to be some difficulty in coming across primary documents to support this idea that many Sydney Anglicans supported apartheid inthe 70s. If anyone has a point of view or actual facts they could join in. Echinoman 02:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Winston Churchill

Hello, I have asked Crzishner to support his claims. Also could you see my comment there re some material you recently added. I would also like to thank you, as I have others, for all your work and for your contributions to the Churchill article. Some of your edits have been inciteful and interesting. Thank you. LordHarris 19:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		For all your efforts towards improving and expanding the Winston Churchill article to reach GA status. Thank you. LordHarris 10:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I wasnt refering to you on the talk page but to all editors including myself, Darkfalls and everyone else in the coming run up to FAC. I hope you did not take offense as I greatly value your edits! They helped make the article what it is! LordHarris 09:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Your message

Hi :-), your edits were fine. I made a mistake by not looking at the article's talk page before I reverted your changes (I rarely look at the talk page of an article while I'm on a recent changes patrol). After I figured my mistake, I reverted myself back to your version see here. I have to apologize. You don't need to ask me or another editor for approval. Everybody can edit Wikipedia without restrictions. Go ahead and edit ;-). Happy editing. LightAnkhC|MSG 21:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• I can revert the article back to this version (this is the version before you started to edit the article). Or I can revert back to this version (this is your version). Or I just leave the article alone. I personally would suggest to revert the article back to your last version; and encourage you to keep on editing if you like to. :-) LightAnkhC|MSG 22:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• As requested, I have reverted the article back to the version before you started to edit. LightAnkhC|MSG 22:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

I may have clicked the wrong one. Sorry. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, I think I must have clicked the wrong one on the "recent changes" thing. Again, I'm sorry for removing your edits. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Winston Churchill in politics: 1900-1939

Hi, I'm impressed. The article looks great. If I didn't take a look at the article's history I'd assume that the article is a long established one. I've added it to the list of new articles at the WikiProject England see here. I'll rate it if I can. LightAnkhC|MSG 11:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Update: I just requested assessment/rating for your article. see here. This will give you a feedback concerning the quality of the article. LightAnkhC|MSG 11:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Winston Churchill in politics: 1900-1939, from J.delanoy

You did an excellent job, I fixed a few small things I saw. Here are some things that need to be looked at that I don't know enough about the subject to fix myself.

1. Check dates throughout the article. Through your spelling of the word "defence" with a "c" rather than an "s", I deduced that you are writing from the United Kingdom. Your date format also shows this fact. You use 15 November, 1915 i.e. DD/MM/YYYY. In the U.S., where I live, it is more common to use November 15, 1915 i.e. MM/DD/YYYY. So that everyone can view their prefered format, make all the dates that include an exact date, e.g. the day, month, and year, into links, like this... [[15 November]], [[1915]]. If I actually made that a link would show up to me as "November 15, 1915", which is my prefered date format set in my user preferences. It works both ways, for example, if you have your date format in your preferences set as DD/MM/YYYY, if I type [[November 15]], [[1915]], it would show up to you as 15 November, 1915 even though I typed it differently. Also, using ordinal numbers in dates (e.g. 15th November, 1915) is discouraged. (see WP:DATE. you may have to scroll down the page a little) OK, I think I beat that dead horse enough.....
2. The subsection titled "Return to power" at the end of the main section titled "World War 1" seems to be incomplete. I do not know if this is vandalism, or simply an oversight. Either way, it should be expanded or removed.

Overall, this is an extremely well-written article. It was also very enlightening, as before I read the article, I knew almost nothing about Churchill other than his involvement in the Second World War. Excellent work. After you fix those small things, nominate it for a Good Article. I think it would easily be elevated. Again, great job. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 15:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

A word of advice

I noticed that although you add a LOT of good content to articles, particularly the one discussed in the section above, you often do not include an edit summery. You should always include an edit summery for every edit you make on any page in Wikipedia. This lets recent change patrollers know that you aren't a vandal, and makes it much easier to see the progression of an article's growth in the history tab. Even if it's something as simple as "updated section" or "added X to the section" or (I use this on talk pages) just "added", it is enough to let people know you care about your edit and you are not making it flippantly. I hope this doesn't come across as though I am in any way deriding you or looking down at you. All that is meant by this is to let you know what the edit summery's purpose in life is. Thanks for contributing so much to that article and to Wikipedia in general. Because of what you have done, Wikipedia is a better encyclopedia. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 03:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope, it looks good, but keep in mind that I am not incredibly experienced in this type of thing, so I don't know what would happen if you put it up for GA, but if I were you I'd try it just to see what happens. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 17:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Churchill

I wasn't aware of any significance to the others, if it is absolutely imperative, then sure. However, I feel that a simple place and country should do because if you want to get more specific the smaller division almost always shows the larger division it is part of. Therequiembellishere (talk) 15:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

RAF Iraq Command

Apart from the sources in the article, you might try chapters XII and XIII of Sir John Salmond's biography Swifter than Eagles by John Laffin, published 1964. Greenshed (talk) 16:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC) However, I'm not sure the above book has much on Amery. Amery's role in the 1920 conflict between British forces and Somaliland dervishes is also interesting. Greenshed (talk) 16:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Churchill

You may want to split it, but that is not a requirement. For example, PlayStation 3 is a featured article, and it is 81 KB long. If you want to split it, go ahead, but I think it is fine now. How much are you planning on adding to it? If it gets longer than 100KB, you should probably split it, but again, that is up to you. I think that your idea of how to split the article works very well. Keep up the good work! J.delanoy^gabs_adds 18:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Bad WP:OR

Your edit to “Economics in One Lesson” is “original research”, which is forbidden for Wikipedia, and your “original research” utterly misses the point. As to the latter, certainly television sets won't find many buyers before broadcasting begins, but broadcasting will begin sooner if the state doesn't divert resources to things such as dams. Natural patterns of research, development, and implementation are retarded by state diversion; one could, thus, speak of the resources that didn't go to personal computers because they went into cathedrals. —SlamDiego_←T 06:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

please explain why a footnoted reference is original research

please identify with reference to the relevant wiki policy. If you say that is original research then every footnoted edit is. As I see it the policy is quite clear

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. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.

The source is cited.

The fact that you seem to have a libertarian point of view shouldnt interfere with the topic.

By the way cathedrals were not as a rule built by the state but by churches.to take just one example from many, one with which I am familiar St. Philip's Cathedral, Birmingham#History

I propose to revert the text unless you can give me some good reason why notBacknumber1662 (talk) 07:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The conclusion that you drew is “original research”; pay attention to what is written in “Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position”:

Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research.

Your ad hominem on my POV is an artefact of your not understanding either WP:OR or the economics here.

As to the funding of cathedrals, during the Middle Ages far more stone was quarried to build cathedrals than the Egyptians put into their pyramids. The funding came primarily from an aristocracy who were the state and who extracted their wealth through force and through the threat of force.

Again, your insertion was “original research” and missed the point. Even had my illustration been ill-chosen, the point would remain that state extraction of resources reduces funding of R&D and of implementation of techologies that would have been research, developed, and implemented had the extractions not been made.

I propose that you do considerably more careful thinking about economics before barreling ahead anywhere. —SlamDiego_←T 08:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

as to cathedrals I strongly suggest you check up the sources. lets deal with cathedrals in England from B (since I cited Birmingham Bristol started by a landowner and royal official (in his personal capacity) arguable Bury St Edwards started by an abbot not state at all Canterbury..started before there was a state by St Augustine of Canterbury. Chelmsford built (or at least extensively rebuilt after being badly damaged) by public subscription last century (check the relevant wiki articles.) I do hope you have sources for your assertion about the quantity of stone. You are simply wrong and your anti Christian non neutral point of view clearly shows.

Now as to the main issue, synthesis is combining or conflating matters as you correctly say citing sources that when put together . The quotation was a single source nothing was put together. Now as to whether its a useful note or not, I suggest we may ask some specialist in the field or better still an administrator. Do you have any suggestions? You will see I am not barreling (to use your expression, unlike yourself who deleted without any discussion)I am giving you the opportunity which you refused to give me. Lets both assume good faith and see if we can reach some meaningful consensis. Backnumber1662 (talk) 08:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Grabbing at “synthesis” in the title of that section will not save you from the policy itself.

I'll underline the “original research”:

However the book suffers from a large number of bizarre and glaring absurdities such as the statement that television sets that were never allowed to come into existence because of the money that was taken from people all over the country to build the photogenic Norris Dam. Norris Dam was completed in 1936, television broadcasting commenced in 1940.

Hazlitt doesn't claim himself not to understand history, nor are you citing someone who makes this mistaken inference.

You're presuming here

1. that diversions before 1940 didn't affect how much money people had in 1940 for things such as televisions, and
2. that diversions before 1940 didn't affect when regular broadcasting began and therefore demand for televisions.

Your conclusion, which follows on these presumptions, that Hazlitt has produced a “bizarre and glaring absurdit[y]” is “original research”. (And the the real absurdity here is in your presumptions.)

I would be happy for you to bring your own behavior to the attention of an adminstrator.

As to your suggestion of specialists, I am an economist. Mind you that this matter doesn't call for an economist. You have studiously avoided the principle that renders your conclusion fallacious: State extraction of resources reduces funding of R&D and of implementation of techologies that would have been research, developed, and implemented had the extractions not been made. One does need to be an economist to see that much.

There's no barrelling in my case. You're simply violating WP:OR. Again, I'd be happy to see you pull an administrator into this; if you persist in making or in threatening to make this edit in violation of WP:OR, then I will call upon the administration. —SlamDiego_←T 09:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

My reply on the issue of cathedrals got trashed by an edit conflict as you revised your comment to my talk page:

Pointing to some privately funded cathedrals does not somehow disprove that an enormous amount of funding for cathedrals was provided by the state. It is as if you were to claim that a history of some private funding for space research and exploration somehow disproves that there was massive state expenditure on space programmes.

Your claim that an “anti Christian non neutral point” drives my argument is the second sort of ad hominem attack from you. I would give you a pass if the ad hominem were at least logically founded, but it isn't. If you persist in this pattern of attack, then I will request that you be blocked. —SlamDiego_←T 09:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

AS to cathedrals please cite your sources. I have. You have quite failed to give any evidence of any cathedral being built by the state. Further, your argument starts with (As I understand it) that aristocrats were the state. Again you cite no evidence and in England they were certainly not the state, they were from before Magna Carta to the end of the Middle ages with the wars of the roses opposing the state. Where is your evidence?

As to administrators by all means please do

As to the topic at hand would you be content if the words you underlined were omitted and the reader left to read the source and draw his or her own conclusion. Once again I am trying not to be aggressive, I too have an economics major (though my post grad was law)Backnumber1662 (talk) 09:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

For the factual claim on cathedrals, see for example The Western Tradition by Eugen Weber. For the claim on logic, see any introductory text.

Well, if you want me to contact an administrator, then presumably you'll continue to threaten the article with “original research” or attack me with ill-founded ad hominem. I hope that you'll cease to do either.

Without the conclusion, and without the synthesis in drawing attention to when the dam was built and when broadcasting began (in the hope that readers will make the same presumption as you), you have

Hazlitt makes the statement that “television sets that were never allowed to come into existence because of the money that was taken from people all over the country to build the photogenic Norris Dam.”

which is then at best apropos of nothing. I won't actively object to that, but you should understand that some editor can always insert a quote from Hazlitt about how costs cascaded; your hope that readers will conclude that the claim is a “bizarre and glaring absurdit[y]” will not be realized.

I don't know whence you claim to have got an economics degree if you won't see that the actions of 1936 can have costs in 1940. —SlamDiego_←T 10:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

AS to your suggestion agreed, save with one rider the topics on TV and Norris Dam should be referenced so it would read television sets that were never allowed to come into existence because of the money that was taken from people all over the country to build the photogenic Norris Dam.” the reader can make their own decisions

Page reference to the Western Tradition please -its a 2 volume book or do you perhaps mean the TV Series.

More generally as to your principle 'State extraction of resources reduces funding of R&D and of implementation of techologies that would have been research, developed, and implemented had the extractions not been made.

How do you assert this when you also assert (quite correctly) that space research (and for that matter most rocketry research cf Wernher von Braun) was state based. (I am using your example here)

Yes quite off the topic but I really am interestedBacknumber1662 (talk) 10:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay. But you'll have to be prepared for some other editor to delete it as apropos of nothing until and unless someone else inserts the sort of quotation that I mention. (I may well do the latter.)

The reconciliation is trivial: R&D and implementation is not some single homogenous entity. Thus, it is perfectly possible to note that R&D and implementation of one technology reduces R&D and implementation of some other technology. It is nearly certain that the marginal effect of some state-sponsored research is to increase the near-term R&D and implementation of some technologies. (The next question is of on which technologies ought expenditure to be made.) But that won't work in the case of the Norris Dam and television.

The reason that one must speak and write in terms of the near-term is that even if we focus only on one particular technology, the long-term effect of state sponsorship is negative, unless indeed the technology is just something that one would never want in such quantities. There is as yet (and probably never will be) a system for economically efficient pricing in administrative allocation; thus, such allocations are always to some extent shooting in the dark. Except where transactions costs are somehow not only lower for administrative allocation than for market allocation, but sufficiently lower to off-set the costs of irrational pricing, there is a performance hit in state-sponsorship. State-sponsored rocketry and space research has reduced economic growth; even space research itself takes that long-run hit.

The problem here is not dams or cathedrals per sese — it is their funding when they are not privately funded. Refusing to let people built dams, cathedrals, or rockets with their own property is the same problem as forcing them to do so. (For obvious example: Someone who is not allowed to contribute to a cathedral may feel less reason to be productive as money does not do as much for him.) —SlamDiego_←T 11:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Churchill

Hi Backnumber, sorry I havent got back sooner - I havent been on the wiki much lately. I will aim to do a review of the article this weekend and get back to you. Good work all your additions thus far and i'll revert back when Ive done a review. Regards, LordHarris 15:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I have done a brief review of the early years article as per your request. I agree you should split it up - far too big. However good work and if I can elaborate on my suggestions please let me know. LordHarris 15:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Churchill/Churchill in politics

Hi, and thanks for getting in touch. I noted what I saw as an issue over reasons for Churchill changing party as it came up while reading. I could perhaps have added something then, but I wanted to re-read the relevant parts of the Jenkins biography to check exactly what he says. This is not trivial, because relevant info pops up in different places. Somewhere there is a comment that Churchill said he was naturally more a liberal than a conservative when he started out, except for the issue of Ireland. This might be somewhat akin to his later making a great nuisance of himself, and becoming very unpopular going on in the house opposing independence for India. Obviously, it was easier for him to get into parliament as a conservative because of his fathers connections. This was happening at a time when coalition politics was quite popular and independent members more usual, so it might not be quite such a big deal changing parties. Then, the liberal party suffered an enormous split, which destroyed it as a party, so I expect Churchill was not the only one to jump ship the second time.

I havn't forgotten about it, but I have been going through different points as I get to them. Right now I have been somewhat sidetracked into Naval operations in the Dardanelles Campaign. I have yet to come to a view whether Churchill was right or wrong in backing this. It does seem plain it was a total balls up, and the more I read about it, the more I find something else which was not done right. But...this seems a very familiar story in battle, and the side with the fewest mistakes wins. Jenkins comments that one of Churchill's driving aims was to stop the slaughter in the trenches, thus any idea which might significantly shorten the war was worth a try. Then again, he was continuously having to fight for resources, so it may be he ended up with the worst of all compromises: agreement to proceed, but refusal to have a big enough force. Reminded me of George Bush, though I see no good motive for what he engineered. Anyway, I have yet to find something discussing this. Admiral Fisher never liked the plan, but he insisted if it was to happen it needed an army and it needed to be started fast (jan). It may be he was precisely right, which would at least confirm Churchill's belief in Fishers ability. Unfortunately Kitchener hated it, and he controlled the army, and he had a bad relationship with Churchill. All the important people knew each other (either friendly or not) and this seems to have coloured matters quite a lot. Churchill sent in a naval force, and tried hard to get them to fight to the death, which they certainly chickened out of. On the one hand, no good admirtal would just sink ships for something he knew was pointless, but on the other hand unless you really try to do something wholeheartedly you do not know if it will work. The stress of it did for admiral Carden. His chief of Staff Keyes (who later very nearly became first sea lord himself) would have continued the campaign. The sunk battleships should not have happened and was somewhere between bad luck and incompetence (people knew the mines were there, but de Robeck didn't). Jenkins rather suggests de Robeck passed the buck when he got news Hamilton was coming with the army, and this let him off the hook of having another go. Another 6 weeks later when Hamilton finally staged a landing it was way too late and he should have called it off on the first day (and he knew it), but he was too good a soldier to complain. Sandpiper (talk) 23:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I know it is irritating and slow, but logically the detailed articles linked as 'main article' need to be written first, so the calling article can have an accurate summary reflecting the larger one. It is not so unusual for a worked on article to end up with better coverage than the so-called 'main' section, if people work on that first. In theory anyway, this would be a 'fail' for a FA. Today I happened to see an old encyclopedia on the great war at a boot fair. Had a read, it was interesting: they went on about the ships being sunk by artillery etc, whereas people now seem to think it was all by one line of mines. That is not to say the ships weren't damaged significantly by the artillery, but the emphasis on how the story is told now seems to have changed from just after the war. The detail they chose to go into, about shell damage, was itself interesting. No doubt we now have more secret papers available: It does smack slightly of a cover up, with no one wanting to admit they drove a fleet through a line of mines. I can accept the general conclusion that if it had been done full force immediately it could have achieved the objective. I am not sure what would have happened next: again as with Iraq now, it does not appear anyone thought about that. They just hoped the Turks would run away.

The more difficult question, at least for me, is whether the plan actually sanctioned by Churchill (ships only) could have worked if carried out rather more effectively. I have seen another online source which says although the Turks were indeed short on ammo, they had many different guns of different calibre, so some shortages were more serious than others. They would have run out of large calibre stuf, but it may be the smaller guns could still have chased away the minesweepers. The book I was reading today, however, argued that despite ultimate failure, the campaign still had merit in tying up enemy resources which went charging off to defend the Dardinelles. I can't say, but it does need to be born in mind that the alternative to Australians being slaughtered on the beaches of Gallipoli was probably for them to be slaughtered on the western front instead, so might as well be to die in Gallipoli. Gallipoli was a big PR disaster, but maybe not so bad compared to the general run of the war. I didn't buy the book, but being so old I would have been wary of referencing it anyway. It had some intetresting pictures, but I'm not sure they were quite old enough to be out of copyright. Carlyon's book on Gallipoli veers towards the view that the whole thing was entirely hopeless, one way or another. I'm not sure Jenkins commits himself, he doesn't go into the fighting much, more the politics at home.

Interestingly this old encyclopedia went on about the two German ships (those pretending to be Turkish) threatening Turkey and being ready to blow up Constantinople. Also, that they were outgunned (and damaged) by the Russian fleet. This is somewhat contrary to what I have read here or in modern books. Smacks of anti-German propaganda? Oh, and I read something which suggested the big battleship guns were supposed to be only fired 200 times before being re-manufactured? thats two rounds per minute for two hours? Sandpiper (talk) 12:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

No, the debate is mainly for the Dardanelles/gallipoli pages. Churchill had an early run in with Kitchener somewhere and thereafter Kitchener was less than amused with him. This was a problem when Churchill wanted to talk him into something. I don't know enough about this, but it seems likely Kitchener was not really up to the job of running the army and was not good at taking advice at the best of times. It may be Churchill took the best deal he thought he could get. Sandpiper (talk) 21:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, as its written it just shows a progression. Side with the dissidents inside, side with the dissidents outside, leave. Its all rather of a piece not being happy as a conservative. I was more concerned that mention of Lord Randolph and how much Winston followed his views is peppered through both sections. It is too long to go without a section. The obvious bit which belongs in one piece is Oldham, but the opening and then floor crossing sandwich it either side in time. It might be possible to make another section, 'oldham' at 'churchills first attempt': this might be a good thing even if it doesn't address your problem. I shall think about it more when I have time, and read exactly what Jenkins has to say about floor crossing, see how it compares with the article.Sandpiper (talk) 07:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Churchill article - Baldwin controversy

I'll leave a fuller explanation of my thinking on the Churchill talk page -- that would be the best place to discuss my edit, I should think. RayAYang (talk) 03:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Churchill article - James ref

I tracked this reference James op cit. p 22 212 (presently #84) to your January 18 edit. I think you'll agree it needs revision. Also 'op cit' should be avoided as per Wikipedia:Footnotes#Style recommendations. I wish I felt I could do a good job standardising all the refs in this article but I'm not familiar enough with the rules. --User:Brenont (talk) 21:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)