User talk:Drmaik

Archive
Archive Archive (up to 13 Feb 2007)

On why I've stopped editing

Basically, I found that most of my time was spent reverting nonsense that people with certain agendas were inserting to various articles on language (and other things). I now think that reasonable articles should not be open to edit for newcomers, and that wikipedia's current policies are tiring good editors out. Articles already in good shape on issues like language and ethnicity will not improve until access becomes harder, as we're always putting out fires. Oh, and another reason is that life has got busier. I'll concentrate on writing academic articles instead. Drmaik (talk) 19:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

re: [1]

the other rendering was sourced and its usage does seem significant. that establishes its basis for inclusion. it also involves how scholars described the meaning of ilah, the second rendering is not as much of a 'translation' as it is a representation of the precise meaning. ITAQALLAH 15:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

i would disagree that it is a polemical website. other editors here tend to agree that it is a decent reference for presenting the Muslim viewpoint. regardless of what the 'false' translation is, we are simply providing all of the english renderings which experience common usage. ITAQALLAH 14:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

List of languages

Hi Drmaik, there's a discussion on the talk page regarding Ethnologue. I was wondering if you'd be able to comment? Thanks. Ryan Leigh 17:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

SPCK

I want to move SPCK to Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge per WP:NAME#Prefer spelled-out phrases to abbreviations. You've commented on this at Talk:SPCK; were you just offering a hypothesis or were you arguing against the move? — coelacan talk — 18:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Article

I'm so sorry - I guess I didn't think about the British spellings. I did wonder, though. My apologies, and thank you for pointing that out to me. I'm sorry I caused you more work, and have a wonderful day.
Saber girl08 19:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Arabic transliteration

I noticed that you're having trouble with a user who doggedly insists on adding his own personal transliteration scheme. I support you on this, but I also want to caution you about being too quick to revert the changes. If you didn't know already, there's a very important "three revert" rule which will result in an editing block. Also, watch out for edit wars. Keep me posted so I can help out. Cheers. Cbdorsett 08:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Check this out and add to the talk page: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Arabic) It's still a guideline and not a policy that can be enforced. There are similar issues in the air about Cyrillic transliterations. Keep in touch. Cbdorsett 08:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Arab World

Hey Drmaik,

I note and recognize your editorial change to my inclusion of the term "Arab Nation". Perhaps this explanation can be included further down the page, rather than in the introductory paragraph, as a means of information for the reader.

Secondly, you will note that I have re-inserted mention of the Indian Ocean in the opening paragraph. This is essential as to omit it would negate the status of the Comoros within the Arab World. Moreover, I note that the map now appearing on the page does not include the Comoros. I believe I can locate a comprehensive map detailing ethno-political map of the Arab World which might solve this problem.

Finally, you will also note that I re-inserted "Arabian/Persian Gulf", rather than merely "Persian Gulf" - this is because the page is discussing the Arab World, so it is common sense to include the term used by Arabs for this body of water without prejudicing the far more universal term.

Thank you. Louse 07:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Hey,

Many thanks for your kind message. I note your comments on the issue of the Arabian/Persian Gulf. Indeed it is true that use of either or both prefixes carries the likelihood of causing offense. Since this would cause needless contention regarding the page, upon reading your message I edited the page to remove both prefixes so that it now states merely “the Gulf”; an imperfect solution, but perhaps a tolerable one given the need to retain neutrality and avoid contention. I would be grateful to know your thoughts on the validity of this edit.

Regarding Djibouti, Somalia, and Comoros (and by extension whether reference to the Indian Ocean should be included), I feel it is can be seen as imprudent for non-Arabs to determine the size or sphere of the Arab World to the extent of denying a state membership of that region. Such an issue is one of self-definition/identification – that is to say how the countries concerned identify themselves. Analysis of Arab media, literature, politics, cartography, etc, reveals that despite their largely non-Arab populations, Djibouti, Somalia, and Comoros, are all defined as being part of the Arab World by virtue of their membership of the Arab League, the status of Arabic as an official language, and their geopolitical orientation. This does not necessarily mean that all, or even most of the inhabitants of those countries regard themselves as Arab, but it clarifies how the state itself is identified.

As you will appreciate, the issue of “who is an Arab?” is highly complex. In this vein, it is worthy of discussion in the article but perhaps not of conclusion – the points should be raised in the page, but not decided on definitively one way or another.

Finally, I have not yet been able to locate the map of the Arab World to upload that I mentioned in my earlier message, but I will endeavor to do so soon.

I hope my humble efforts are not needlessly convoluting what should otherwise be a simple introductory paragraph.

Once again, my thanks.

Louse 10:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Arabic Language

Hi there! I noticed that you were editing at the same time as me. I tried to put your [[]] back in for prefix and suffix, without success, because you are still editing. Please look over my changes. Cbdorsett 13:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Please fix my error in confusing the two parts of the construct. I don't know which term is favored nowadays, genitive or prepositional - would be nice if Western grammarians would just stick to the Arabic terms, wouldn't it? :) Cbdorsett 14:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Couscous

Hello. I just wanted to mention that I thought your near complete reversion of my change to the Couscous lead was somewhat inappropriate, I would like to discuss it with you. For instance why did you just remove the North American availability bit, instead of moving it to an appropriate section? Also why do you disapprove of saying that the Maghreb is a region of northwestern Africa when it is not mentioned directly anywhere else in the article (thus not repetative)? I think it may be safe to say that "Maghreb" is not in the vocabulary of most English speakers in the world. It certainly is in the vocabulary of less than 1% of North Americans (not that we are noted for our vast knowledge of geography, but we are the largest population of English speakers). If it's in the first sentence, I don't think a general encyclopedia reader should have to click the link to find out the meaning of the word.

I also revised your revision which left my word rolling, because rolling grains/cereal has a specific meaning (e.g. Rolled oats) as opposed to rolling pasta.

Also, please see my addition to the discussion page which begins a discussion Couscous is not pasta. If you will review Talk:Couscous I think you will agree that nothing on that page indicates consensus. Also, even the BBC food glossary indicates that couscous is indeed pasta.

I edited Couscous in good faith, and am a contentious, and educated editor of Wikipedia (particularly ProjectPlants) please don't just off-handedly revert edits that you might not full agree with.

Thanks for your consideration. Peace Earthdirt 02:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[Category:IRA killings]

Hi. You may be interested in the talk page [2]. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 17:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect

I suggest you read all the discussions before making false accusations. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

As I've stated on the category talk page I will be happy to discuss the category once the issue of the unilateral recreation of the category against the decision of the deleting administrator. Despite this, I have made initial comments regarding the category anyway. I fail to see how I am not doing this, his comments were clear, let the CfD run its course then discuss if and when and what articles the category should be added to. Adding the category to articles without doing this has no consensus. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

just to quote from the discussion on Hackney's talk page

If there is a category of "Category:IRA_killings" then until it's removed by due process in a CFD, its inclusion in articles relating to IRA killings is perfectly valid - assuming the IRA were involved, and people were killed. Drmaik 19:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You are aware that his comments here were made after his first comments, when he was made aware of the history of the disputed category? So under the circumstances his later comments take precedence over his earlier comments. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃

Caution - 3RR

You appear to be engaged in an edit war, when it has been made clear to you that the there is currently mo consensus for the category to be used on any article, and discussion is ongoing about whether the category should be used. Please respect consensus, or lack of, and engage in discussion rather than edit warring. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

La Mon restaurant bombing

Please don't edit-war over this category. You should be aware that WP:3RR is an absolute rule and that there are always better ways to advance your argument. Please take this to talk. Thank you. --Guinnog 19:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Languages

Okay, we're on the same page now. I got a bit confused (I think I may have been looking at the Encarta numbers), but I fixed the page. Look it over and make sure it's okay. My main point of contention was with the "additional comments" section that someone kept deleting. -Ryan01ud

Egypt, Arab world, etc.

Hello Drmaik, re. your edit summary here [3]; I think there was no reason for a non-member [4] of the WikiProject to add it and rate it as being of "High importance"--speaking strictly for myself as a member of that WikiProject, I happen to believe it holds no such high importance. More importantly, WikiProjects on individual countries generally do not include their larger regions within their scope. For example, Europe and the European Union are not part of WikiProject France. If there is a WikiProject Arab World it would make more sense to include the individual countries within its scope, but not the other way around. Similarly, Egypt is part of the Africa WikiProject but Africa is not within the scope of the Egypt WikiProject. — Zerida 07:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Official name

Hi Drmaik, re. your last edit to the article of Arabic, I found the official name of that Academy as told in its website is Jordan Academy of Arabic [sic]. There could be a kind of rheotric jak here, but what we should do if they, themselves, are translating their name like this? Can we modify their published name? Ralhazzaa 12:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I've self reverted. I saw something on arabicnews with Jordanian, and it seemed better English, so I corrected 'Jordna' that way, but fair enough, if that's what they call themselves. Why not put the link as a reference? If you don't get round to it, I might do so tomorrow. Peace, Drmaik 14:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello Drmaik, I was actually planning to create a new page for that Academy in WP, but found you modified the name, so asked you to have a look firstly before creating the page with different name. It is much better to know it from its source rather than think it is intentional r.v. . Salam! Ralhazzaa 04:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

French language

• 64.5 million are the population of France (2006)
• 78 million are the french-speaking natives of Europe

Mister Drmaik, great professor of linguistic, don't be affraid with the true !

64.5 million and 78 million are ridiculous ! And I think you know it !

(Poor english wikipedia)

Sincerely Oldealliance 10:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Salut,

Oui, il me semble que 65 millions ne soit pas le vrai montant de francophones de langue maternelle (comme par exemple, pour d'autres langues comme l'anglais et l'arabe). Mais, c'est ce que dit une source assez respectée, et même une des autres sources citées [5] reclame qu'il n'y a que 82% des français qui sont de francophones de langue maternelle. De mon opinion, ce chiffre est aussi trop bas. Mais, c'est ce que disent les sources le plus respectées. Voiez Languages of France pour voir une étude gérée par une groupe de recherche francaise qui donne 85%. Ainsi utiliser la population de la France, comme vous l'avez fait, pour une éstimation de nombre de francophones ne va pas du tout.

Cordialement, Drmaik 11:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Spam website (address substituted by Drmaik)

Hello, I am François from France-Toulouse. I am a passionate of foreign languages. I have built the site during many months, it is non commercial, purely FREE for all. (spam address deleted) I have made four versions in order to be understand by the maximum of people in the world : Arabic, français, espanol, russian and English. My site is of very good quality and now that I am not in Wikipedia I have less and less visits. I find your decision not fair because my only goal is to share my passion and help to learn Arabic. There is no advertisement in my site, no religion subject, only about Arabic. If I put it in all Wikipedia languages it is because I think that an hungarian a Russian, a spanish... have the same right than Chinese, Korean or other to learn Arabic.

Many language pages where I put it, there was nothing to learn Arabic, no external link at all, and you ask us to participate and make content, that's what I have done. I would be very pleased if you can reintegrate my website because it is a good one. I am ranked 4 on Google, and I am not in Wikipedia. I know that you have the power in one click to annihilate all my hours of work day and night. I have been working hard, and my goal is not to spam but make my knowledge available for the most people. I have exactly the same idea than Wikipedia to make my work available in the most languages as possible. I am not able to make my site in Hungarian (magyar) or in Chinese or in Dutch, that is the reason why I made links towards English version. I would appreciate a lot if you can restaure my links, for me and the visitors. Thanks, because I love wikipedia and I often read articles, and I want to participate.

Now I just ask you to add me in the most common languages such as English and French. If I made an error of excess it was not with a bad goal, only by passion for Arabic.

François

your reply is here Drmaik 12:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

A little Thank You from a friend

Dear Drmailk,
Thank you for your warm welcoming!
I hope I get more time to stay contributing while maintaining my busy life :)
Sure it's a lot of fun and knowledge here!
It's just a little challenging to learn all these wiki scripts and templates!!
Wow!
Everyone here needs to hire a programmer :-(

Thanks again!
Opensourceit 19:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

More Arabic musings

Hey Drmaik! I just saw this laughing riot [6] which is simply too à propos after the last comment I made on the Maltese language talk page ;-) But actually I wanted to ask you something else. The article on Classical Arabic states that the true classical pronunciation of /dʒ/ "was most likely a voiced palatal plosive [ɟ] or palatalized velar stop [gʲ]." Could you help me locate a reference for that? I don't know enough about CA to pontificate, though I may have heard the bit about the palatal stop (nothing about the velar stop). Any info would be appreciated. — Zerida 08:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Ezzayyak tani ya Drmaik? Danta elmasri bet'ak kuwayys ahoh, mahush 'ala addo walahaga :-) You know, I was asking more out of linguistic curiosity since I'd never heard of that before, though it would be nice to cite the article as well. If true, it would be rather interesting in terms of historical sound change considering how the postlaveolar affricate is believed to be a defining characteristic of Classical Arabic. Cheers, — Zerida 03:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Common surnames list

You probably are correct for deleting that list of most common Indian surnames. I opted for alerting the newly registered contributor to the need for a reference citation (and at the same time alerting the user to the lack of verification for the information). --Orlady 23:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Persian Gulf

This is the name as approved by the United NAtions, please only use the tern Arabian Gulf in reference to the Persian Gulf naming dispute. (Freedomforallwomen 12:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC))

Mariam83 back - Maghreb, Racialist vandalism

Mate, I believe one would be best served by getting Admins in right quick. (collounsbury 15:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC))

Qart-hadast or Qrat hadast

Hi

I seen that you reverted my edit- but may be you’re wrong. You see, in Hebrew as well as in Phoenician the word for city is KRAT or QRAT (קרת) another word, which is more commonly in use this days is EER (עיר), any way-when we are talking about קרת the R came before the A- I know that the common spelling in english is Qart and not Qrat- but does it phonetically correct? The Hebrew version for HADAST is slightly different from the Phoenician however (HADASA חדשה). Best--Gilisa 07:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind reply! Any way, I knew already about the Google results (I use Google also when I'm not sure how to formulate something in English-it's a good statistical tool even if not the intention that the people who establish it had in mind when they formulate the idea of Google... ) and you are right about that- so it seems that I had no good reason, factually talking, for changing Qart to Qrat. My impression about the Phoenician language is that it's less like a separate language from Hebrew and more like a different dialect (there is no even single word in Phoenician language, at least that I know, which is not similar or almost similar to a word with the same meaning in Hebrew)- about Qart, I don’t know how the Phoenicians spell it, but I'm quite sure that the Qrat is a more correct writing even if very uncommon (it's not unusual for a mistake to become the standard)-I think that it worth an examination.

Best

--Gilisa 18:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Lol, off course not. Any way, Hadast mean actually חדשת i.e. (I see that you are familiar with most of the Hebrew alphabet) in Hebrew it starts with ח which sounds like ch or cha, and the root of the word is ח.ד.ש. some how I find it hard to believe that the Phoenicians didn't pronounce the ח, if so than Hadast in Hebrew should sound like אדשת which mean that the Phoenician root for the word “new” (חדש) is א.ד.ש. It may be because of the fact that European scholars usually didn’t have a pronunciation system which resembles to the North Semitic languages.--Gilisa 07:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S Please follow this link, it's more correct to write hadasht (sh=ש) than hadast. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilisa (talk • contribs) 11:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

'Language, politics, and religion' section of the Arab World article

Hey Drmaik,

I completely concur with your reversion of the POV changes made by User: Psamtik 1 in the 'Language, politics, and religion' section of the Arab World page. This contributor clearly has an agenda which seeks to re-dfine the ethno-linguistic classification of 'Arab' as applying only to those people of Arabian descent, effectively classifying the majority of citizens of the Arab World as non-Arabs. As you know, though this viewpoint does not hold much currency amongst the majority of people in the Arab World, or scholars in general, it is frequently encountered on Wikipedia.

The other extreme viewpoint sometimes seen, which I know you have direct experience of on the Arab World page, is to purport that most Arabs (in North Africa at least) are not indigenous but direct descendants of Arabians. Again, I concur with many of the revisions you have made on the Arab World page in this regard.

My specific query today is to whom your comments "Editor is pushing a strong 'ethnicity is orign' POV, which is not academic consensus. Pls discuss major edits first" were directed - Psamtik or myself. The edit I made in the 'Language, politics, and religion' section was a factually accurate attempt to pre-empt the other user's effort to revise the section in a way which categorically denied the Arab identity of those citizens of the Arab World who do have Arabian roots. In my comments explaining the edit, I conceded that my wording might require some alteration, but I the core of the edit is accurate.

I would be grateful if you would clarify your comments as, naturally, I do not wish my own edits to be misunderstood or misconstrued by my fellow contributors.

Best wishes, and thank you for your continual efforts on the Arab World page.

Louse 15:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Article Sharara

Now I have come to conclusion that Sharara is Arabic word somehow absorbed in Hindi. But I don't have source. Google do not give reliable source. Can you help me on this? Thanks. Sharara 19:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Here

Drmaik: I've responded at Talk:Here (disambiguation). SnowFire 04:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for filling me in on the banned user editing the North Africa article. RainbowOfLight ^Talk 19:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

may I point out in the friendliest of all possible manners

that every single one of your contributions, upon checking them, appears to simply be reverts. You are removing valid contributions from many pages. Please do not revert without valid reason. Thank you 89.242.0.59 (talk) 19:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Maltese language

what do you think about my proposition on the discussion page? I will enter it if no one disagrees, as I think this reflects the academic consensus as much as possible while keeping a NPOV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.1.62 (talk) 12:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Sudanese Arabic, peripheral?

Hi, Drmaik I appreciate the effort you are doing in languages especially Arabic varieties. I just wanted to point out that Sudanese Arabic is listed among peripherals in the Varieties of Arabic Navibar. Can you clarify the basis? Thanks. Hakeem.gadi (talk) 10:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Arab World

Hello. Could you review these three edits made to Arab World? I do not know enough about the topic to determine if they are good edits, especially since they bear a passing similarity to some aspects of the edits of a certain banned editor. --Kralizec! (talk) 22:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Sub-Saharan Africa

Hello, I noticed you reverted my edit to the sub-Saharan Africa page. The user whose edits I changed included links to works by known Afrocentric authors like Andrew Muhammad and websites like africanholocaust.net, but you still chose to uphold his edits without bothering to explain why that is. Wikipedia's policies clearly forbid referencing unreliable sources. Afrocentrism is not scholarship. It is idealogy masquerading as scholarship, and openly flouts Wikipedia's ban on questionable sources. One of the user's links even leads to a paper "first published at" a conference named after the infamous Afrocentric author Cheikh Anta Diop. In another, he lists a chapter from Andrew Muhammad's book "Hidden History", but instead of linking to that chapter, he links to a pro-Afrocentric .pdf file promoting Afrocentrism. Forgive me if I sound cynical, but if the point of Wikipedia is to present a neutral, objective position, how exactly does tolerating extremist views help? Is the "Sub-Saharan Africa" page a vehicle for the dissemination of Afrocentric propaganda or a place where people come to genuinely learn about that part of the world? Please respond. 70.48.96.146 (talk) 08:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Russian

I gave you several sources that say that millions of people in former USSR (not just Russia) speak Russian on a native level (see Talk:Ethnologue list of languages). Methinks you are just a Russophobe, anti-Russian. Lots of that these days... So sad...--SergeiXXX (talk) 00:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of languages by number of native speakers according to two websites

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of languages by number of native speakers according to two websites. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of languages by number of native speakers according to two websites. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Tunisian Arabic advert.JPG

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Tunisian Arabic advert.JPG. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Acather96 (talk) 20:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Tunisian Arabic

Dear User,

As you are one of the contributors to Tunisian Arabic. You are kindly asked to review the part about Domains of Use and adjust it directly or through comments in the talk page of Tunisian Arabic.

Yours Sincerely,

--Csisc (talk) 13:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

It is an honour for us that you have returned yesterday to edit Tunisian Arabic after these years. I think that your help would be very useful in adjusting our work and letting it more accurate as you are among the leading scientists who had worked about Tunisian Arabic. Yours Sincerely, --Csisc (talk) 11:50, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

If you have any question concerning what we did, you can write it in my talk page. It would be an honour for me to answer your questions and receive your comments and reviews about the work. --Csisc (talk) 11:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your answer. --Csisc (talk) 14:06, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

As you have said, the work was done mainly by Tunisian WMF Users. We have made our best to adjust the data in the work by contacting scientists from SIL International, Linguistic Data Consortium, INALCO and the University of Vienna. However, I think that the work requires more reviews and adjustments. I think that your help would be important as we are not linguists and can make errors in describing several facts about Tunisian. Yours Sincerely, --Csisc (talk) 14:11, 9 December 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) 13:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Drmaik. 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)