User talk:Trueblood

Welcome!

Hello, Trueblood, 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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --soum^সৌমোyasch 08:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rudolf Steiner page

There were some problems with edit conflicts with the article Rudolf Steiner. Please check to see that your last edits are included!Hgilbert 16:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trueblood- I think your recent addition to the Race Issue on the Steiner page actually belongs in the large article, since it is a specific example rather than a general statement about the controversy.Boogafish 20:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm aware of the race issue regarding Steiner. My point is that your contribution was a specific example rather than a general statement. What I'm trying to protect is the article from ever becoming bloated and being the first thing someone sees when they go to the Steiner page. I mean, at one point Steiner's views on race and ethnicity was the largest article on his page and people who would come to Steiner's page would think that his main contribution to society was his racial views. Obviously that's not the case and that's what I'm trying to protect. Boogafish 21:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, it was too long even before you added too it (when keeping in proportion with Steiner's real contributions like to Christianity or the arts. I mean, in all of Steiner's lectures he RARELY touches on the topic of race. There shouldn't even be a blurb about Steiner's racial views on this page as he rarely even mentions the subject, compared to everything else he spoke or wrote on. Since I don't think the article should even exist on Steiner's main page, I'm sure you can see why I don't think the article should be added to. There's a place for this controversy and it's not on his main page. Britannica would never have it, so why should wikipedia?.Boogafish 15:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You raised a good point when you said that the examples in the first paragraph shouldn't be there either. I agree wholeheartedly. I'll edit the entire section so that everyone's satisfied. Boogafish 16:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

War Crimes

Calling people "war criminals" is a PoV by Wikipedia policy. --Haham hanuka 21:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trueblood, there is no such policy. Wikipedia even has a war criminals category. Just so you know. gidonb 17:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks and circumventing community decisions

Recently you've posted several personal attacks againts me, either into my talkpage, or through edit summaries. This is against WP:NPA policy, and may be erased from wherever they appear.

Moreover, when there is a community concensus to delete an article, don't recreate it immediately after the concensus was reached. This vandalises community mechanisms.
You may be blocked for such a bad conduct. --Haham hanuka 11:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you must mistake me with someone else, look Accusatory comments such as "George is a troll", or "Laura is a bad editor" can be considered personal attacks if said repeatedly, in bad faith, or with sufficient venom. this a quote from WP:NPA policy, i called you a troll once and think it was justified. trueblood 11:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

salman rushdie

It seems you have a problem with a reference for Salman Rushdie's converstion and recanting, which I thought I provided. What more is needed? Thanks. Asif Omer

you are reverting my edits without any reason. if u want the source i can give it to you. but if u keep reverting, i shall have to file a complain against you to administrators.

easy, i replied on your talk page --trueblood 17:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sorry vandalism might be the wrong word. but if u want the source i can give it to u. please dont keep deleting it. may be my language wasnt good but all i wanted to do was make a point. i wont put it myself on the salman's page but request you to put it there as properly as you can. i just want u to list there that under his death threats and advices by his muslim friends, he renounced his book and embraced islam. his exact statement can be found on my earlier edit. u can also request for the links to his those statements. he said those things on 24th december 1990 under fear of islamic threats.as given by me in the earlier edit

moved from user page to talk by trueblood

this is the link. http://voiceofdharma.org/books/ayodhya/ch12.htm search salman rushdie in it. the book is not worth reading. i am just giving you one of the links to the statements. he has reportedly condemned this statement too in 2001 or 2002, i m not sure about the date. it seems we have similar interests. can i see your profile or have your email address. mine is nidhishsinghal123@yahoo.com.

i tried to email u via wikipedia but it said that the user does not have a valid email address or doed not want to share it.

anyway i was just interested in knowing ur name, age, and country. if u r not too reserved about it.

after my minor change in this article you made a comment,"f you are so desperate to have this in the article". It was ,i am sure many others will accept,a significant inclusion.Without the statement which i added,readers will be let to think that the bounty on salman rushdie is a serious one.but the statement makes salman rushdie's thought on it clear i.e, it is a mere rhetoric than a real threat. Black hat 009 18:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)black_hat_009[reply]

Organic food

Pleae see my comments on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Organic_food --Zeamays 19:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sticking Organic food and trying to make it better. Like you said, it's not going to be easy, and I wouldn't be suprised if it's a while before the NPOV is taken down and it gets back on the "Good Article" list. JabberWok 23:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes simply deleting material you don't like or disagree with isn't as constructive as adding to or changing it - or moving it to an article where it better belongs. You want to have a net positive gain on Wikipedia.

Plus, bad material can easily be deleted later, but it's a little harder to dig up information that was relevant or useful from older versions of an article. JabberWok 16:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second what JabberWok said. You are being completely unreasonable to just delete my contributions! I'm totally offended by this. Amillsx 09:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a link to my List of companies that make organic foods on the Organic Food page, as you said that the article is too long. Rnazar 20:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

State terrorism

I have organized the article, I would also ask you to vote on State terrorism in Sri Lanka and State terrorism in Syria to keep the articles as these are attempts at making state terrorims a better subject in Wikipedia. All your help is appreciated. Thanks RaveenS 15:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your vote, it is in RaveenS

3RR

If someone has violated 3RR, it is to be reported. If someone is pushing his/her own agendas or issues, without regard for community consensus, it is not welcome here. The block is just a firm way to point that nobody owns Wikipedia articles and they can not do anything they want against community consensus. Even though the official policy is of a 3RR, I believe in 2RR. First time, u add (or delete) something with just a summary. 2nd time, provide a detailed rationale of y u doing it. If it still is not absorbed, talk the issue out and reach a consensus b4 making the edit on the same issue. --soum^সৌমোyasch 04:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User Goethean has been doing this all day. Any chance a warning could be issued here?

(cur) (last) 15:36, 8 September 2006 Pete K (Talk | contribs) (→Rudolf Steiner's views on race and ethnicity - Added yet another quote - to clarify Steiner's views on the races.)
(cur) (last) 15:28, 8 September 2006 Goethean (Talk | contribs) (removing selective quote. we already have an entire article on steiner's views on race. discuss there.)
(cur) (last) 15:26, 8 September 2006 Pete K (Talk | contribs) (→Rudolf Steiner's views on race and ethnicity - Added quote since the other one was deleted by revisionists.)
(cur) (last) 14:00, 8 September 2006 Goethean (Talk | contribs) (removing pov)
(cur) (last) 13:39, 8 September 2006 Pete K (Talk | contribs) (→Rudolf Steiner's views on race and ethnicity - Replaced quote - vandalism by revisionist who apparently doesn't want Steiner's views on race displayed here. They belong here as I have explained.)
(cur) (last) 11:48, 8 September 2006 Goethean (Talk | contribs) (please stop vandalizing the article by adding negative quotations. there is already an entire article on steiner's views on race.)
(cur) (last) 11:37, 8 September 2006 Pete K (Talk | contribs) (→Rudolf Steiner's views on race and ethnicity - added a new example of Steiner's racist views.)
(cur) (last) 11:36, 8 September 2006 Pete K (Talk | contribs) (→Rudolf Steiner's views on race and ethnicity)
(cur) (last) 09:03, 8 September 2006 Goethean (Talk | contribs) (→Rudolf Steiner's views on race and ethnicity - removing quotation. views on race have been moved to another

--Pete K 22:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another State terrorism AFD[1]

Your opinion please. Thanks RaveenS

RE: Dr. Ehrenfried Pfeiffer

Dear Trueblood,

I suggest you take a look at:

http://rotheraine.com/golden_garbage.html (Which is a reprint of an article from Colliers magazine, May 31, 1952).

It is a great biography of Dr. E.E. Pfeiffer and gives you some idea about how well Pfeiffer was known outside of the world of Biodynamics during his time.

Perhaps this also gives you more information about how B-D was connected with the environmental movement during the early days?

What could be more environmentally conscious (and quite ahead of its time) than composting Oakland's municipal waste in the 1950's? The Collier's article was complete with photographs.

Jwyeager

I made a comment on the discussion page at Ehrenfried Pfeiffer. michael Redecke 22:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

idolatry

See your answer.--Patchouli 05:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Award for neutrality

		The Epic Barnstar
		This is awarded to Trueblood for striving to maintain a neutral viewpoint in Ruhollah Khomeini.--Patchouli 06:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

.

helpme

hello, in the article biodynamics i want to change references that are not links, like SOURCE: A Brief History of Bio-dynamics - an Australian Perspective, Biodynamic Growing Volume 1, BDAAA Literature, Sydney, Australia, pp 34-36). so that they are numbered and listed at the end of the article. how do i do it? trueblood 07:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you're looking for the <ref> tag -- see WP:FOOT (and a little more general, WP:CITE) for more info. :) Feel free to ask again if that doesn't answer the question (if I don't respond, toss in another {{helpme}}. Luna Santin 07:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spiked

Hi there. Thanks for your contribution to the Spiked page: this page has been repetedly vandalised by LM-ers trying to present a blatant nNPOV perspective on the magazine and to suppress anything that might present the magazine in a negative light, so it's nice to have someone else interested in keeping the article on an even keel. I'd not removed the 'perported' previously, as that remark was from Novo/LM's perspective rather than an attempt to obsfuscate any decision the court had made, but in hindsight, it was poorly worded and likely to cause confusion, as well as installed by a user hellbent on suppressing any criticism of the magazine, so good call in editing it. Bearing in mind the past vandalism and nNPOV, I'd appreciate it if you could keep an eye on the page and help us keep the contents above board. Best regards FrFintonStack 01:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

change name of article

hello, can i change the name of an article, or how can i start the process of changing an article's name?? the article Baader-Meinhof Gang Members is a subarticle of Red Army Faction, the latter also was the official name of the group whilst the first is just the name it was called by the man on the street. thanks trueblood 17:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You will want to move the article to the right article name. Hope that helps! —K e akealani 19:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yep, that did it, probably should have figured it out myself instead of bothering someone, but thanks a lot. trueblood 20:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome - it's not a problem...moving isn't always the logical thought process for how to rename something, so it makes sense to be confused ^_^ Anyways, I'm very glad you got everything sorted out! —K e akealani 20:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

photos

somebody [[2]] has flooded the salman rushdie article (and others) with photos, that he made himself i guess. not quite sure how to deal with this. but it seems over the top. are there any guidelines for how many and what quality standart they should have. thanks.

I've reverted to before the photos were added. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good place to start. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

salman rushdie

i reverted your last edit to this article. the satanic verses controversy is covered in depth in the article about the book, so i tried (repeatedly) to keep the section fairly basic in this article. you will see if you look at some of the older discussion bits. also i think there were changes in several sections that you reverted, because you did not like the changes in one section.trueblood 20:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the talk page of the article, where this concern should properly have been addressed. The older discussion bits are inconclusive, and do not justify your changes.Hornplease 20:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rudolf Steiner, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rudolf Steiner.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 12:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC).

Annoying Nonsense

Thanks for removing the annoying nonsense from the Steiner article - but please don't use my talk page as a trashcan. I've move it to TheBee's talk page as it was he who started each of the annoying discussions. Probably archiving it would have been a better solution. TheBee wants this stuff to be public - he's even started documenting it on his own websites, so chances are, you will be a busy guy if you intend to remove all the annoying stuff from these pages. Good luck... Pete K 14:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Short question

trueblood, could you add BR (Enter)(?) after a posting by someone else, before you add your own comment? Not doing it, as at present, does not separate your comments from the comments by those you answer, and makes your comments difficult to read. Thanks, Thebee 13:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Organic food

I removed my most recent edits to organic food as well as that not-insightful paragraph by Amillsx. I agree that intros should be short.

I definitely don't want the article to seem biased in any way. I'd like to point out the reasons - backed by evidence - that people buy organic and support organic farms. A part of me feels like that hasn't been made clear enough in the intro or something. It especially seems this way when some users (like Amillsx) feel the need to add comments to the article like "organic food is pointless" as if they learned nothing from the article. JabberWok 15:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Factory farming

I apologize, Trueblood, I didn't mean to step on toes. The problem was that the criticism section had been removed from Factory farming, which made the new page a POV fork, and it wasn't clear what distinction was being made between the two articles. I felt the animals/crops distinction was the most obvious one. Do you disagree? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by the old factory farming discussion. Is something missing? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's at Talk:Factory farming. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration

There is a current request for arbitration relating to the articles Waldorf education, Anthroposophy, Rudolf Steiner and Rudolf Steiner's views on race and ethnicity. Hgilbert 01:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 01:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

diffs

[[3]]

[[4]]

Soil

I restored the disambiguation link you removed - it's relevant and should be left in. exolon 00:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

if you think that link is so relevant, why don't you start a disambiguation going that says: for other uses see.., as it is it looks like grafitti and i am going to take it off again. trueblood 08:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Such a link would only be appropriate if there were many other meanings for Soil. When there are only one or two, direct links at the top of the article are entirely appropriate. If you think it looks like graffitti (I can't see it myself) rewrite the link text. People are going to type 'soil' into the search box looking for the band, so we have to accomodate them. exolon 19:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education

The above entitled arbitration case has closed, and the final decision has been issued at the above link. Waldorf education, Rudolf Steiner, Anthroposophy and the extended family of related articles such as Social Threefolding are placed on article probation. Editors of these articles are expected to remove all original research and other unverifiable information, including all controversial information sourced in Anthroposophy related publications. It is anticipated that this process may result in deletion or merger of some articles due to failure of verification by third party peer reviewed sources. If it is found, upon review by the Arbitration Committee, that any of the principals in this arbitration continue to edit in an inappropriate and disruptive way editing restrictions may be imposed. Review may be at the initiative of any member of the Arbitration Committee on their own motion or upon petition by any user to them.

For the arbitration committee, Thatcher131 23:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Translation

A full translation of the TV-broadcast that you have asked about in one discussion, with comments, is found here. For some more comments on it, see here, here, here, and here. Regards, Thebee 12:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

trueblood, P.K. disapproves that I have linked to a full translation of the TV-broadcast above, as it also includes comments on it. If you disapprove of it too, and the further links I mention, I apologize. Feel completely free to remove it all if you do. I have searched for the broadcast in the original language at my HD, and found it (though with the same comments). If you want to see that, tell me, and I'll put it up somewhere. Thanks, Thebee 16:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention you completely missed the point (if the intention to divert Trueblood to your original research was a legitimate mistake). The point is that Trueblood is able to read the original German and translate it for himself. He suggests the article has mistranslated the broadcast. We're trying to work through this as the source is legitimate but there may have been an error. You are welcome to participate in that discussion. We don't really need your translation (and comments) to resolve this. It is a policy issue that may require the translation of several UNBIASED Wikipedians. Or, since it says what Steiner is known to have supported,it may not make a difference if this particular translation is a little off (if it is). I'm hoping to get Lethaniol to look at the issue to see how it should be handled. Pete K 16:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[5] sorts out the basic problem touched on in the broadcast with regard to anthroposophy. In all contexts world wide there exist people with a more or less racist leaning for different reasons, also at Waldorf schools. That's not the issue. The issue is how representative they are in the context they appear. The Swedish study indicates that WCs distort this. Thebee 10:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the Swedish study shows nothing of the sort. Pete K 16:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reopening of arbitration

I have reopened the arbitration case concerning this article for review Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Review. Fred Bauder 15:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop your blanking

Stop blanking sections of the Rudolf Hoess article. Just because you don't like articles about Nazis doesn't mean you have a right to remove factual information from the articles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.229.242.88 (talk) 22:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Review

The reviewing of the case has finished. You may view the decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Review.

For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 18:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

To any administrator reviewing any unblock requests, please see here. -- Netsnipe ► 07:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i have been blocked for my involvement in an edit war, i called that sloppily vandalizing in my own edit summary, but really two parties were reverting each other, i deleted a passage, the other party put it back, i gave reasons why i don't want the passage, the other party did not give reasons why it should be in. i compromised by leaving the info in ( a list of rudolf hoess' ss ranks) but i did not want an actual chart with the actual ss rank symbols; lately i have taken to just deleting the chart without restating the list. if i did not state my reasons clearly enough here we go again, for esthetic reasons i don't a larger part of an article about one of the biggest war criminals of history taken up by accounts of all the medals and ranks and what that a criminal regime accorded to him, i know there are ss rank fans out there that feel strongly about this but is it really of mainstream interest? trueblood 16:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! I didn't notice you did try to explain your edits to Talk:Rudolf Höß back in Nov./Dec. 2006, I hadn't noticed any recent edits to that page and your edit summaries of "(→Career in the SS - vandalized chard, again)" were not helpful to your cause when I took User:OberRanks's complaint of vandalism against you at face value. I've now unblocked you. In future, please make more of an effort to resolve disputes with your fellow editors instead blindly reverting to your preferred version, or another administrator may mistake you for an uncooperative editor. -- Netsnipe ► 16:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

my block

i just quote from the last edit (on a different article) of one of the people that repoached me for blanking the hoess article (see above, stop blanking or something): fuck you asshole your dick is big vert big and your wifes nipples are very nice[[6]]

and ask again why am a blocked for a whole week? trueblood 16:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're not blocked anymore. -- Netsnipe ► 16:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mengele

Please don't delete referenced info. Thanks. --John 17:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All the same, deletion of referenced info should not be done without discussion. --John 17:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is so. --John 21:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: hostile takeover at organic food

Hey thanks for the tip off - and sorry for the late reply - I'll try to bring more balance to the article. JabberWok 00:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Organic Valley Article

Hello - I just recently uploaded my first article on to Wikipedia, Organic Valley, Inc. I know you've been active in creating similar articles and I was hoping you could take a look and give my any suggestions you might have. Thanks for your time!Goldtome 15:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Goldtome[reply]

Alex Avery

{{helpme}} i want to start a page about a someone called Alex Avery. there is already an article about an actor of the same name. how to go about? thank youtrueblood (talk) 13:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could create the page at Alex Avery (politician) or Alex Avery (sample description) instead. WP:DISAM should have the information you need. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be very careful on the Alex Avery article. DS (talk) 02:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Mr Avery wrote in to m:OTRS to complain; he was concerned that you intended to say false things about him. Although I'm sure that you mean well, I'd just like to ask that you be careful to not say anything that he might complain about. DS (talk) 13:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hint on criticism of Fritjof Capra

I don't know what 'hint' you mean. There has been a lot of criticism of Capra, some of it is mentioned in The Tao of Physics. There should be at least some mentioning of it in the article on the author of it. --BertSen (talk) 22:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hint on criticism of Spiked (magazine)

Please ensure that that you abide by Wikipedia rules & abstain from PoV, esp on green issues. Train2046 (talk) 19:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

I'll bet you really like True Blood, don't you? Is that why you picked your name? 68.218.222.8 (talk) 07:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Trueblood. 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]