User talk:Oliphaunt

I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented.

If I post on your talk page, I will notice any replies posted there.
Unless you request otherwise, I will reply here to comments made here.
I will usually post a brief note on your talk page to let you know that I have replied, unless your talk page instructs me otherwise.
If you write a reply to me here, I may decide to move your text back to your talk page in an effort to keep the thread in one place.
If you are just pointing out something written to me elsewhere, edit here.
Such pointers are useful if you've written to a comment I made many days ago.
I refactor my talk page, so
To see older messages please view the history.

Pings

Welcome to the Wikipedia

Here are some links I thought useful:

Feel free to contact me personally with any questions you might have. Wikipedia:About, Wikipedia:Help desk, and Wikipedia:Village pump are also a place to go for answers to general questions. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be Bold!

Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 12:46, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Johnny Carson image vandalism

might it be a good idea to delete that vandalised picture? Doesn't seem respectful, and all that. Or is it important to keep it in while the vandalism is in progress? Phaunt 00:37, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm actually not sure about policy on deleting image revisions. Past vandalism of text pages does remain in the history, so I'm erring to the side of caution here. --fvw * 00:44, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)

Maybe follow this procedure? I can't do it, since the page is protected. Don't intend to bug you - I'm a wikipedia newbie, really... Phaunt 00:53, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That doesn't really apply, that's just for deleting entire images, not just separate revisions. The vandalised revision wasn't used in the creation of the current one, so I guess it can be deleted though, so on second thought I have. Thanks for flagging the matter on ViP! --fvw * 00:57, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)

Try reloading the page, you probably still have an old version. --fvw * 01:07, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)

Né

If you look the great majority of Pope articles use né sometimes people change them because they believe that it is not English. If there was some concensus and reworking of articles to change them all I guess I wouldn't have a problem... but I don't think we should swap synonyms just because we can. gren 07:22, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Monty Hall praise

Thank you very much. I didn't really do that much; the article was very good and quite complete when I found it. I pretty much just responded to the comments at WP:FAC. Like most things here, it was a collaboration. If you're in a praising sort of mood, you might add a general "to everyone who worked on it" note on the article's talk page (completely up to you). -- Rick Block (talk) 01:50, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Nog steeds geblokkeerd: hoe kan dat?

"Oscar" blokkeerde me vanmorgen voor een periode van 12 uur (lees tot 14:42 uur), maar nu heeft hij me, zonder dat ik ooit nog iets heb kunnen doen, verder geblokkeerd, terwijl ik niets meer heb ik kunnen doen op de site ondertussen: dat is toch volstrekt tegen de regels, of niet dan soms? Op 8 sep 2005 12:48 (vervalt op 9 sep 2005 12:48) blokkeerde Oscar:

3242 (U werd geblokkeerd omdat uw IP-adres overeenkomt met dat van "Bart Versieck". Deze gebruiker werd geblokkeerd met als reden: "negeren en ontkennen van de conventies".) Bart Versieck 18:11, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Ping

I have replied to you on my talk page. Feel free to remove this note after you have read it. --Gmaxwell 09:55, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Van Eck phreaking

I noticed an edit of yous on Van Eck phreaking, and I was wondering if you could help me with something. I know Wij vertrouwen stemcomputers niet has their report on the Nedap/Groenendaal ES3B voting systems and it includes being able to record spurious emissions (like in the video), but there has been talk of of problems with the SDu NewVote voting machines. Do you have any information on the possible problems with the SDu NewVote voting machines (preferably in English)? Thanks, -- Electiontechnology 17:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a look at their website, but all available information seems to be in Dutch: [1]. You could ask the people at wijvertrouwenstemcomputersniet if they can summarise the information for you in English. Oliphaunt 18:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks anyway. This sort of information would be very useful in the US, and there is so little translated into English on the topic. The US is currently writing voting system standards which hopefully will become known as an international standard on the subject, and it would really be great if they had some more information on some of the international examples of voting technology (particularly in the Netherlands). If you happen to come across any information in the future, please send it along. -- Electiontechnology 20:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Prince Pondicherry; Thomas Johann Seebeck; Anna Pavlovna of Russia; Playboy; The Candy Man; STS-119; Grandpa Joe; Ear; Rashid Sunyaev; Edward Waring; Robert Ochsenfeld; Walter H. Schottky; Aerospace engineering; Mark Haddon; Pete Abrams; Lighthouses and lightvessels in the Netherlands; Lennard-Jones potential; Ids Postma; Linalool

Cleanup: Action of 29 June 1694; Homework; Military of Aruba
Merge: 73P/Schwassmann-Wachmann; Radio Frequency Identification; Keystone (architecture)
Add Sources: Sandbag; Baltic Republics; Kansas Joe McCoy
Wikify: John Proctor; Christa Schröder; Paul Samuelson
Expand: Mr. and Mrs. Teavee; Andrew Claude de la Cherois Crommelin; Ishikawa diagram

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 00:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British vs. English POV

On the article where I made the correction, it was originally fiber, and someone changed it to fibre, so I changed it back. So technically, they violated the rules, not me. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by C++ Template (talk • contribs) 14:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou

for your comments. Happy Easter! Andycjp 00:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

French Fourth Republic

(moved Barryob's reply to his talk page to restore context 22:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

British anti-invasion preparations of World War II

I thought that you might like to know that British anti-invasion preparations of World War II, an article to which you have previously contributed, has been put forward as a featured article candidate. Thank you for your help. If you would like to comment on this article's nomination, please see here. Your opinions will be most welcome. Gaius Cornelius 12:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shortcuts

Hey Phaunt, You recently added a shortcut to {{uw-error1}}. We try and keep the uw system of warning as harmonised as possible, so editors know that if they can enter uw-e1 as you have done they can also do uw-e4. Could you create the other shortcuts please? Many thanks ^Khukri 07:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, much appreciated. ^Khukri 10:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You were quite right to point me to a bit of work I left undone. Sorry for my initial laziness :-) Oliphaunt 10:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please don't think I left the message because I thought you were being lazy. I know these thing just get overlooked. Cheers again. ^Khukri 12:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Thanks for linking to a disambig"

Removed Myles Long's replies as he also posted them on his own talk page (and I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented). Oliphaunt 21:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look before you leap

I have used wikipedia for a while and don't need your ridiculous comments on my talk-page. Check your facts before posting patronising pre-written stupidities, however well you mean. 89.168.3.105 20:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Would you please tell me how I could have known (by "checking my facts") that you were a long-time user, as you allege? Your contributions (16 in number) don't go back to before 18 April, and neither have you been welcomed before.

Also, I would like to ask you to remain WP:CIVIL.

Please feel free to make the welcome message less patronising or stupid, as I'm afraid I don't share your opinions of it. Phaunt 21:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

I'm sorry about the personal attacks, I wasn't aware that we wern't allowed to do this on personal Talk Pages. Also, in all fairness, he was the first one to "grind my gears". In any case, I'll refrain from all forms of personal attacks.--PoidLover 22:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Your username

Ha! Suitably delightful! I have placed a copy of this image on my desktop for future amusement, and shall have to visit Joure the next time I'm in the area. Thus far, my wanderings have centered around France, and while I've been that far East (into Germany) and that far North (into Britain), I've never attempted both simultaneously. I hereby resolve to do so! Jouster (whisper) 18:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jouster has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Re: POV at Rogue Wave

I think my calling the edit POV-related was a mistake; sorry about that. It was conversational, but most importantly, s you pointed out, was irrelevant to the article. --Quintote (talk) 17:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hard spaces at MOS

[Ha ha! I just realised that MOS is itself a "hard space" – a hard place at which to get any useful action.]

I think you will be interested in the section Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Non-breaking_spaces. Some of us are ready to take this further, and make a sustained effort for reform at the village pump. Care to take a look? Perhaps you'd like to express your support, at least, at the end of the section. Your involvement would be much appreciated.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 23:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note in reply, Phaunt. I think the details can be left for the discussion at the page we make for all this. I look forward to working with you. An interesting new way of doing things!

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 10:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phaunt, thanks for your note at my page about admins and such. A handy link that I wasn't aware of. Of course I knew that editor was an admin. It was a rhetorical question: his page ought to show that clearly, and it didn't. My frustration was simply about poor communication of basic facts like that; contrast the annotation that I placed at the redirect page he deleted, solely for an admin to read and to take into account, even if only by putting a warning at my talk page. Never mind! It doesn't matter.

Let's do what we can to keep things moving along at User:Noetica/ActionMOSVP. It would be good to have more editors participating, and the present ones not dropping out, yes?

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 01:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hard spaces again

Things are moving along at our page concerning hard spaces. I hope you will stay involved, as we approach a crucial vote. Your contribution is of great value.

Best wishes to you.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 00:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your current editing at User:Noetica/ActionMOSVP

That's great, Phaunt! I'll move out of the way for a while, now. Just one thing: if you're going to show alternative interim versions of the summary text (in part or as a whole), you might adopt this convention: underline altered text, and mark removed text with something like "...". I know you want to keep things clear and readable, and that you are good at that! We should make such procedural moves explicit and easy for others to adopt as well.

Your earlier FAQ-type list was a fine idea. Pity it was split for a while. Note that I have proposed active discussion at all of these current subections.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 01:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your considerations and praise :-) But as you may already have read, I'm done for now. No further discussion for me anymore tonight. See you later! Phaunt (talk) 01:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Nice work! I'm now making a small modification, so that we have a working text preceded by a current consensus text. I'll set my original version up as the consensus text for now, and we can accumulate agreed changes as the process goes on, to update the consensus text. Good?

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 01:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll see tomorrow what you've cooked up. Good luck! Phaunt (talk) 01:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've followed your lead. A progressively updated summary in a subpage can be transcluded at any other page, and there is a link to our discussion for anyone wanting to join in:

User:Noetica/ActionMOSVP/StableProposalSummary

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 09:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change at WT:MOS

Thanks Phaunt. In fact, I did intend to open a new section, because the topic is broadened and I want discussion for a change in MOS.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 22:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...hard spaces again

User:Noetica/ActionMOSVP/StableWholeProposal

How's that?

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 07:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Best wishes

Phaunt, I know you'll be leaving soon for a month. I just wanted to wish you well with all that, and I look forward to interesting collaborations on your return.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 05:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Noetica. Today, I defend my Master's thesis. I've been keeping half an eye on WT:MOS, but you seem to be doing nicely there. On my return, I hope to see that matters have progressed nicely :-) Phaunt (talk) 08:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Monty Hall problem

Hi - I thought I'd drop by and let you know your input is definitely welcome. As you've surmised there is at this point considerable history on the talk page. The anonymous user currently at 70.137.136.97 has what I think is a valid criticism that is not yet fully addressed. For whatever reason this user's comments come across with a great deal of hostility - I'd encourage you to try to read beyond the hostility for what he's actually saying. His basic point is that there is a difference between an unconditional analysis (not considering the specific door the host opens) which applies on average to all players and a conditional analysis that applies to a given player knowing what door the host opens. In the "standard" version of the problem the result in both cases is a 2/3 chance of winning by switching, but the analysis to get to this 2/3 chance is different (and the conditional analysis leads to a different result for some versions of the problem). -- Rick Block (talk) 01:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - Re this comment, yes indeed the point 70.137.136.97 is making is that if the host does not choose equally between two goat doors the player's chance of winning by sticking with his/her original choice might not be 1/3. There's an explanation of this on the talk page here. It doesn't (can't) change the player's original 1/3 chance of having picked the car (so the average across all players is 1/3 chance of winning by staying with the original choice regardless of how the host picks between two goat doors), but if the host has a 100% preference for one goat door over another (say the leftmost one) there are two different situations with different probabilities depending on the door the host opens. In this case if the host opens the rightmost door, the player's chance of winning by staying is 0 while if the host opens the leftmost door the player's chance of winning by staying is 50%. The overall chance across all players who stay is still 1/3 since the host will open the rightmost door only 1/3 of the time and the leftmost door 2/3 of the time (so, overall chance of winning by staying is 1/3*0 + 2/3*50%), but the chance of winning by staying depends on which door the host opens. The "equal goat door constraint" eliminates this quirk and makes the probability of winning by staying remain 1/3 regardless of which door the host opens. -- Rick Block (talk) 13:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing this out to me. Almost directly after I posted the comment, I figured host behaviour of this type must be possible to change the 1/3 chance; I guess that up until now I've just always tacitly assumed the "equal goat door" axiom. And because you noted before that this was really off-topic in the current discussion, I decided to remove my comment instead. Thanks again for taking time for what is actually a repetition of stuff that is already in the talk page... :-) Phaunt (talk) 14:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

I've analysed your contributions and believe you can be trusted with the tool. Please remember that it is for blatant and obvious vandalism only; if in doubt, use the undo function, as it allows you to put in an edit summary. Please take the time to visit Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback to practice, and ask if you need help. Best, PeterSymonds | talk 21:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Oliphaunt (talk) 21:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No probs! Happy editing, PeterSymonds | talk 21:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Logo

(moving this to my talk page to keep the discussion all together) Equazcion •✗/C • 22:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Judo page moves

Hi. I think your move was not correct, the other articles use the short dash (check athletics for example). So, consider moving them back. Or, if you can find the paragraph in the policy, the others should be moved as well. Regards. --Tone 14:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tone, instead of an em dash a spaced en dash could be used, but a hyphen character is certainly not correct. Indeed, I think that the others should (eventually) be moved as well. Cheers, Oliphaunt (talk) 14:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addition: instead of a dash, a colon could also be used, as in "Judo at the 2008 Summer Olympics: Women's 48 kg" Oliphaunt (talk) 14:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To conclude, if we can agree on which format / style is preferable, I'm willing to facilitate the rest of the moves. Oliphaunt (talk) 14:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know, Oliphaunt... you're absolutely right. We should've used spaced en dashes, as WP:DASH advises, not hyphens. What bothers me the most is not having seen that earlier, it is the tremendous amount of moves that will now have to be made to comply with that guideline! It's "basically" ~300 moves times 20+ Summer Olympics editions! Perhaps it's best if we don't mess with the current Olympics articles, since they are constantly being edited, but go for the older ones. Parutakupiu (talk) 15:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't be too hard to collect all the links and use a bot to move them. Do you think it'd really be a problem to move the current articles? The editors should be painlessly redirected to the new pages, anyway. OTOH, it shouldn't hurt to take an eventualist stance on this and wait for the end of the Olympics before moving them. Oliphaunt (talk) 15:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right, a bot would do that tirelessly, and moving all the 2008 Olympics articles won't hinder users from editing ongoing events. But as you said, it's better to wait for the Games to end, when all this "edit assault" ceases and it's less disturbing to rename pages. Parutakupiu (talk) 15:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, it looks that indeed all those articles are using the wrong dashes... A bot solution would be fast and effective, I suppose. And I don't really see a reason to wait with the moves. Those articles are not edited that often so it would be affected anyway. Cheers. --Tone 16:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fine by me if you want to start moving. I'll post this situation on the WP:OLYMPICS forum so project members are alerted beforehand and can also give their share of thought. Parutakupiu (talk) 16:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and I could write a bot to do it in about an hour. However, we should definitely wait until the olympics is over. I think the dash should be spaced because it looks terrible in the title otherwise. Whether it's a dash or a colon is, I think, fairly up to debate, but we should reach a consensus before any more changes are made. --Selket ^Talk 17:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, spaced dash, otherwise it looks ugly. A colon would be an option but I don't remember seeing it in other titles. --Tone 18:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tone, I saw your test over at Judo at the 2008 Summer Olympics — Women's +78 kg, and I feel a spaced en dash is to be preferred over a (spaced or unspaced) em dash. But I guess we should wait till after the Games. Oliphaunt (talk) 18:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too many dashes... spaced en dash, that's the best so far. The manual says em dashes should in fact not be spaced. ~~What I am not sure is how to distinguish en dash any hyphen, it looks all the same to me...~~ – - --Tone 19:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC) (corrected when I saw this posted, it's obvious :P)[reply]

There's a discussion at the MOS talk page on this very subject right now. Oliphaunt (talk) 13:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Straight vs curly quotes

Hi Oliphaunt, and thanks for pointing me to that guideline. I wasn't aware of it (though I should add that I don't think I ever went so far as to replace apostrophes with "proper" ones, or "fix" article titles, which appear to be the actual issues there).

I didn't mean to insult anyone by saying "proper" btw, it just happened to be the term that first popped up in my head at that time (I'm not a native speaker and didn't think of "curly" right away).

Anyway, I guess that means less petty editing and more creative writing for me from now on. (^_^) Groetjes, --Schwallex (talk) 16:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

?

What does this mean btw? Professor M. Fiendish, Esq. 05:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Aha," said the postman, "so you have nailed that letterbox shut!"

(timmeren = to hammer/nail, a carpenter is a 'timmerman'; dicht = shut)

Cheers, Oliphaunt (talk) 14:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles 05:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to comment at Monty Hall problem RfC

You are invited to comment on the following RfC:

Talk:Monty Hall problem#Conditional or Simple solutions for the Monty Hall problem?

--Guy Macon (talk) 22:16, 8 September 2012 (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) 12:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Oliphaunt. 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. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Oliphaunt. 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]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Oliphaunt. 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]