User talk:Robertissimo

Welcome!

Hello, Robertissimo, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!

Happy editing ! --Bhadani 15:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nasdijj

Just wanted to say congratulations on the work you have done on the Nasdijj article. I'm following the story with interest, as I have an academic interest in forged identities, and your clear and unbiased report may be used in an article I'm hoping to publish on the case. Cheers, James. Vizjim 22:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:OFFICE

Please read WP:OFFICE. This is wikipedia policy, and all users are expected to respect it.--Jimbo Wales 23:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nasdijj

Given whatever the hey is going on over at Nasdijj, please tell me you've a copy of your article saved? Vizjim 23:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I just used Google's archive function and now have a copy of the page saved on my hard drive with all links preserved. Once the strange vibes around the page have settled down and we have some clarity, I'd be happy to email it to you to reinstate if necessary (username at AOL). Vizjim 23:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make sure you saw this

My actions on Nasdijj were taken without a specific review of any of the claims in the article. We had a complaint about the article, and a quick glance at it shows that it does deal with a potentially extremely difficult topic, and it is better to carefully get everything exactly right before proceeding. I am happy to see you working on the rebuild. :) A few people seemed to be offended on your behalf, but I wanted to be sure you understood that I only intend that the article be excellent, and offered no judgment positive or negative on what was already there. :)--Jimbo Wales 10:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Hi, Just wanted to say thanks for the message you left about the Bette Davis article. It was a very welcome surprise when I logged in. I'm glad you like it. cheers Rossrs 22:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fake Diploma Mills

How is hyperlinking to the home pages of Bellford, Ashwood, and Rochville a "nuetral" act? A hyperlink from Wikipedia helps these fraudsters greatly in search engine rank, which helps them reach more victims. Why not simply type the URL in plain text if you must reveal their domains? SarahTeach 20:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be great if you could address the detailed evidence at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Belford_University

SarahTeach 05:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kola Boof

What needs to be done is for all wikipedians editing this page need to be unbiased (the pro Kola Boof people and the anti Kola Boof people I'm talking about here). Most of these new edits that give so much focus to bin Laden is not needed as it is not germane to Kola Boof and if anything should have an article of it's own if need be, but even that can be debated. Not to mention that many of these new citation sources come from the same website and may be biased against Ms. Boof and that should be noted. MrKing84 03:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. MrKing84 03:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Blanking

Thanks for the support on that [not to be named] major annoyance. I agree with you that even while "scam" may be, by some lights, inappropriate, "hoax" is unequivocally not.

Nevertheless, I'm blanking all the User talk about blanking on my page, since some [utterly theoretical] people are capable of taking offense to even a few trace molecules of dubiety. Of course, it's a standard tactic for "scammers" (by which I mean "hoaxers", of course) to go on the offensive when detected, but that's an idle observation that has absolutely nothing to do with any subject at hand. I just ramble on, okay? See you in the trenches. --Pagana 16:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Puffery

Very well said. I think somebody is trying with pitiful desperation to drum up enthusiasm for this person's "legendary" teacher and the "top photographers" taught by that teacher.

Category:American photographers contains much other drivel besides, but there are only so many hours in the day. (Oh, and not only American photographers, and not only American photographers.) It's puffopedia. -- Hoary 05:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But rather than individual whack-a-mole (a mug's game, unless we can get another hundred to join the effort), perhaps we should direct our energies to preventive megawhackamole. -- Hoary 07:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has fiddled with Sabal's article, removing the POV and cleanup templates. But they're needed as much now as they were before. Groan. Well, I can't attend to this right now: the "real world" demands my attention. -- Hoary 03:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont understand what you want. This photographer is amazing and I cannot understand what you want. please elaborate.

Since he's "amazing", his works will have been published in books or shown in solo exhibitions, or both. We (Robertissimo and I) eagerly await independent, reliable evidence for either, or of course both. -- Hoary 06:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont understand

What do you want, the kid is obvlously amazing! He shoots the covers and contributes to Conde Nast Publications. I hear about him all the time in NYC. He shoots for major companies advs. Include Apple, The Gap, Amercian Apparel, Microsoft, Gucci, cant you see his webpage???

Reading that he's someone you hear about all the time in NYC, I went straight to the NYT. And this is what I found. The NYT appears not to have mentioned him since 1981. -- Hoary 06:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Avila

Excellent sleuthing, Sir! (Or conceivably Madam.)

The first version of that article, written by one User:Marlonjames (whose sole contribution to WP this was), curiously offers the same profusion of spelling mistakes that afflict the comments of the multiple (?) proponents of Seth Sabal. On the lack of verifiability for the claims made for Avila, well, we were after all warned that Avila was "legendary". And the legend hasn't reached the index of the capacious Oxford Companion to the Photograph. Would Category:Legendary photographers be a subcat of Category:Fictional photographers, or vice versa? -- Hoary 15:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, I think that I may have perpetrated "interestingly". I take heart from the fact that in his otherwise excellently written (and very worthwhile) book Embracing Defeat, John W. Dower hasn't been stopped by his copyeditor from sticking in the ghastly "when all is said and done" five or more times. Yes, "legendary": I've come to realize that in WP articles it means "entirely unremarkable". -- Hoary 07:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Get a whiff of this. -- Hoary 08:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC) PS and I have a feeling that this lady too may be heading for AfD. -- Hoary 10:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Christas

Thanks for pointing this out! I went ahead and reinstated it in the right place with an introduction. I think that as it relates to a topic that has involved legal threats, it should be available. Thanks again! - Richfife 19:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I marked it for csd-g4, which is hopefully justified by now. Judging from the creation comment, he's (I'm of the opinion Linda Christas is just one guy: Ronald Bernard) getting a little tired himself. If it's rejected, well, I guess we have a lot of cut and paste material available from the last go rounds. - Richfife (talk) 16:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It went bye-bye. Thanks! - Richfife (talk) 04:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the laugh

WikiThanks

for your concise, and much appreciated, edit summary. Please keep up the great work! Justin Eiler 21:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Qaboos of Oman

Hi Robertissimo

I'm an Omani and my sources are 100% right about his sexuality all that is false he's not homosexual. His first marrige was in 1970s, yes it wasn't successful but then he married again... so he's married and his mother's name is Muzon bin Ahmed. Qaboos's name is written wrong it's not Al Bu' Said it's Al Said —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zadjali (talk • contribs) .

Nancy Ajram

FINAL WARNING - Enough already... Please STOP reverting my edits... Nancy Ajram was born in Achrafieh.... I will give you 24 hours to revert to my edit before you force me to escalate this UNNECESSARY dispute to an Admin... [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Lcnj 01:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a note on the article's Talk page regarding place of birth, faith background, and the need for appropriate sourcing. I've also removed uncited faith information from the article and added a Sources template. I see no reason that any verifiable information from a reliable source couldn't be added; but fan pages, WP mirror sites, and other wikis (absent sourcing therein) do not meet the standards of WP:RS. Robertissimo 05:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you Lebanese? Most Lebanese know that Nancy is born in Ashrafieh and is a Christian... Lebanon is a small country with little sources and internet resources... You are doing ethnic minorities a disfavor by forcing them to find so many sources. you MUST assume GOOD intentions... We know Nancy... and we know where she is born... On top of that, I cites a few of the sources I found about her birth place.. I delayed teh Christian until I can find some source... I do not want to have to escalate this... Just assume good faith... and revert your Rev3... Lcnj 07:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand your frustration about sourcing, but "we all know" doesn't meet the need for reliable sources. Ajram is a celebrity throughout the Middle East and, increasingly, beyond, and I'm now searching a range of references -- English newspapers and magazines in the region, principally, but also internationally, to help bolster the article, which is almost totally unsourced and needs a lot of work. Robertissimo 07:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Why are you the second party and the sole judge on this issue? Wikipedia is about consensus... What is your "status"? I sent you many sources on the Internet IN FRENCH (you should be able to read French)... that confirm that Nancy was born in Achrafieh... Before I escalate this unnecessary dispute, are you going to revert your Rev3 or not? Lcnj 01:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm an admin. If you wanted to call in an admin for this job (and I see no reason for an admin), I'm probably not the best one, because I've worked well with Robertissimo in the past and thus could be accused of having a bias. Nevertheless, my "two cents". Perhaps Robertissimo can read French but he doesn't claim on his user page to be able to do so. While I have considerable sympathy with the idea that everybody should be able to read French, and while I happen to be able to read (or misread) French myself, I can't read Chinese, Russian, Arabic, or Spanish (have I forgotten any other non-English UN language?) and I do think that an assumption that all educated anglophones can read French is a bit unrealistic in 2006. On the other hand (a third? a fourth?), I'd agree that a source in French is just as valid as one in English. That said, I worry about some of these sources; for example, I don't suppose that fr:Wikipedia is any more reliable than en:Wikipedia, and I have a dim view of the general reliability of the latter. Suggestion: with ping-pong arguments across different user talk pages, it's hard for third parties to make helpful suggestions; therefore, do try to discuss a disagreement about an article on the article's own talk page. If you would like a detached opinion, start by asking people to look at the article and to discuss it on the talk page. If that fails, then bring the matter up elsewhere. -- Hoary 03:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent suggestion; to that end I've brought over my responses (the user has blanked them on his User Talk page) and will hope that in future discussion will take place on the subject article's Talk page. As it happens, I do read French (and Arabic, along with passable Spanish, Italian, and, to a lesser extent, German). My objection was never to the content the user wished to see added, but rather that none of the sources cited met WP:RS (French fanpages are still just fanpages) and none, for that matter, were ever included in the article at all. In any case, I quickly found a good source for POB and have found sources with which to deal with the subject's faith background. Many thanks as always for your help. Robertissimo 14:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Frey

I recently checked in on the James Frey page, and found it seemed to be whitewashed, systematically removing substantiated that happen to reflect poorly on Frey. I think the process well from January to November. However, since November a number of users - many of whom are unregistered and haven't edited any other articles, seem to be create a pro-Frey edit. I don't think the major removals of information were justified. Sourced and cited info is being cut without specific rationale on the Talk page. Since you previously edited the page, I figured I'd ask you if you can stop by the article and help. --JamesAM 00:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Hello From One Of Your Subjects

Thanks you for taking note. I do think, though, that you would enjoy being seated next to Peggy Hopkins Joyce. You no doubt know that she was the model for Lorelei Lee, and her offhand observations on life had the zany clarity of Anita Loos' invention. She'd be the hoot of the table. Ethan Mordden, December 13, 2006

Cleanup tags

Hi, it's best not to subst: these by and large. See WP:SUBST for more details. Rich Farmbrough, 17:52 20 December 2006 (GMT).

WHAT DO YOU MEAN "PROPER CITATION"?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.32.235.140 (talk • contribs) I think it's ridiculous you elitist's delete someones entry for no good reason and fail respond as to WHY.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.32.235.140 (talk • contribs)

Rick Devin

Hi, I am uncertain as to why you added a COI tag to my page. Musician and Recording Artist pages are, in of their context, biographical or autobiographical in nature. See any of your favorite Bands or Recording Artists as an example. They all note their development, their influences, their stories, their awards, and their albums, no different from what I have presented. I have re-written and provided resource links which should help. Thank you Rickdevin

Robert Sherman paintings

Hi there, a couple of days ago I was thinking of putting these up for a grouped afd discussion, but I didnt quite get around to it. You've beaten me to it now with your merge tags. I think merging them into the main article will necessitate cutting out most of the articles content anyway... and I'm bit concerned that even the cutdown content still needs to be assessed for whether his paintings really are notable... Anyway, just wondering if you thought it was okay for me to proceed with an afd. Thanks! Bwithh 06:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cinema of Egypt

Hi Robertissimo. Nice work with the Cinema of Egypt article. I've always wanted to start this article but never had enough time. Thanks for taking the initiative. Keep up the good work.--Wedian 20:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Policy against the word "claim"

Hi Robertissimo. Here is where I found it: Wikipedia:Words to avoid. I think it is a good policy. Steve Dufour 04:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sherman Paintings AfD

Fyi, I've now started the afd on these articles. See the link at Moses (painting). I don't have the knowledge you do about film songs, so I'll leave it up to you regarding the song articles you mentioned. I have to say that Category:Sherman Brothers does seem a bit unusually large.. Thanks! Bwithh 23:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

California Tortilla

Hi, I noticed you marked California Tortilla as a db-spam. I left some comments on the talk page; let me know if you know of ways to improve the article. Thanks, _SUBWAYguy 06:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FineArtAmerica.com

FineArtAmerica.com - It's not a commercial site. It's 100% free and a great resource for fine artists and fine art galleries. Why would you keep removing it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.215.179.208 (talk) 06:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Response at Talk:Fine art. Robertissimo 08:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of pubs

As someone who has contributed to the talk page discussion on List of publications in philosophy and/or that article's previous deletion debate, I thought you might be interested in participating in its new nomination for deletion which can be found here. Thanks. - KSchutte 17:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question about WP:ANI edit

Regarding this edit, what's up? --Iamunknown 04:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Student-First Accreditation AFD

is here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Student-First_Accreditation. We'll see where it goes. Thanks for pointing it out! - Richfife 15:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfC opened for my conduct in Weiss article dispute

I've just opened an RfC on myself for my conduct in a dispute that you were involved with concerning the Gary Weiss article. You were involved in the AfD discussion for that article in November, 2006. The RfC is located here and I welcome your comments or questions. CLA 21:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question about NoKA edit

I don't understand why you have removed my changes. I spent a lot of time researching this topic to ensure it was factual and unbiased. I understand Press Releases can be biased but I used only the facts from those releases and nothing to promote the company itself? In fact, I see that you have reverted the article back to a version that, in my opinion, is more biased than my version. Roxbury13 23:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answered on the Talk page of Noka Chocolate. Robertissimo 14:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Urgent request-Comment on Article for Deletion

Hi there - Thank you for your participation in the Bluemarine request for comment. On a related, but broader note, I thought perhaps you'd like to comment on the proposed deletion of a proposed "Dubious Sources" category? This isn't discussed as it should be within Wikipedia, in my opinion.Typing Monkey - ^{(type to me)} 03:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PR, The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power

The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power, at Wikipedia:Peer review/The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power/archive1. You commented back when this article was up for deletion discussion, and I don't think you monitor the WikiProjects I posted this notice to. Your suggestions on any tips to get this article eventually to WP:FA, or if you think it is ready for WP:FAC or WP:GAC, would be most appreciated at the Peer Review. Thank you. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 19:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In case you blinked and missed it...

Apparently they offered to pay this time... User talk:Drmathphysics - Richfife (talk) 17:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - accusation of being Robert Cox

FYI, a high-audience blogger has basically publicly accused you of being Robert Cox, president of the Media Bloggers Association, from your editing of that article - "Yes, I know: there’s always the possibility that it was written and revised by some other Robertissimo of the same name—one who uses the standard MBA wording, is familiar with the organization’s doings, cares enough to keep a close watch on the entry, cares far too much about who gets credit for being the first bloggers to get journalistic credentials, and has a writing style very like that of Robert Cox. It’s well to keep such improbabilities in mind. ... I’d have thought that “There’s a good chance that I’m the president of the organization being criticized” was the more pertinent information ... Dear Wikipedia: may I suggest that you have a look at Robertissimo’s other entries and edits? Dishonesty is so seldom a one-time event. Also, someone should fix that entry". You can't prove a negative, but for whatever good it'll do (sadly, probably not a lot), you might want to add your denial to the many, many, people who have pointed out claims that blogger has gotten wrong. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 00:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

African cinema task force

Hey there! Thought you might like to know that an African cinema task force has been proposed. If you are interested, then please feel free to sign up! Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Figures Of Our Age

Or then again perhaps not. Yes, these fashion photographers certainly are resilient. Me, I'm struck by the combination of (a) this and (b) the implications of this. -- Hoary (talk) 11:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About ACBSP and European University

In August of 1992, ACBSP was recognized by the U.S. Department of Education as a specialized accreditation agency for business education. That recognition continued through April, 1996, when the Department of Education changed its policies to recognize only those agencies that impacted the distribution of federal funding. To fill the resulting void for a national body to recognize accrediting agencies, the Council for Higher Education (CHEA) was created in 1996. The CHEA-recognized scope of accreditation is: Degree programs in business and business-related fields at the associate, baccalaureate, and graduate levels. At its meeting on January 22, 2001, the CHEA Board of Directors reviewed the recommendations of the CHEA Committee on Recognition regarding the recommendation and recognized the Association of Collegiate Business Schools and Programs.

Furthermore, European University is in the process of receiving two (2) more accreditations in 2010. I will not say which two before it happens. But they are very important accrediting body's, one is from Europe Union. Remove European University from the list of unaccredited institutions of higher learning, they are accredited! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimbal007 (talk • contribs) 10:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Jad Shwery for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jad Shwery is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jad Shwery until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Epeefleche (talk) 06:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the JT LeRoy entry

On January 2, 2016, you very sensibly requested that the editor "108.200.141.120" stop posting vanity additions to the JT LeRoy entry and broach the subject on Talk before reposting again. I just wanted to alert you that this person has persisted in trying to add the same and related promotional materials and vandalisms. The same edits kept up throughout January 2016, only the name of the editor kept changing: "Itzat94118," "Earthyperson," "Truthlovepeace." This person also came back in March 2016 as "174.119.2.166," but then fell quiet. That is, until September 21. Now using the name "Msturm 8," similar disruptions and distortions to this page have recurred: various attempts to promote the film "The Cult of JT LeRoy" and its director, Marjorie Sturm. I repaired the entry but "Msturm 8" was back again today, trying to boost her film (which by the way is already cited in the article, along with other recent films about the JT LeRoy saga). So I repaired it again. I hate seeing someone use Wikipedia to sell a movie. Is there anything that can be done other than just keeping a watchful eye on this page? Eternal vigilance, I'm told, is the price of liberty.... Thank you for any help you can offer! NVG13DAO (talk) 17:49, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Robertissimo. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Chesty Morgan (band) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chesty Morgan (band) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chesty Morgan (band) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Domdeparis (talk) 12:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Robertissimo. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources needed for Days of the Year pages

You're probably not aware but Days of the Year pages are no longer exempt from WP:V and direct sources are required for additions. For details see the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide. The article about the person you added to August 25‎ did not have any source that I could add to this page to back up your addition so this change has been undone. If you restore it, please provide a direct reliable source. Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 17:33, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Robertissimo. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]