User talk:Dubc0724

Please click here to leave a message.

Archive 1: June-August 2006

License tagging for Image:Suttongry.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Suttongry.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 18:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Notice to Guitarist Project members[edit]

An Admin, unfamiliar with the project, has nominated our template-Template:Guitarist infobox-for deletion. I have added a vote to keep it...more would help. Anger22 12:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

tfd[edit]

See [1] -- it's very similar to the guitarist deletion episode.

Dean Smith[edit]

Oh, I'm not removing it out of any sort of collegiate bias on my part, nor do I disagree with you. Actually, I really don't follow sports or care much for them. However, it doesn't seem neutral to me to label him as one of the best ever. To preserve the content, you could quote a source calling him the best, that way it would fit NPOV. Besides, I think his record speaks for itself. LaszloWalrus 04:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

University of New Jersey at Durham[edit]

Are you familiar with the editorial perspective of Vanguard News Network, which you cited as a source for North Carolinians' views of Duke University in University of New Jersey at Durham? It should not be considered a reliable source. --Metropolitan90 14:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not. It was only used to demonstrate that the nickname is widely used. I have no idea who Vanguard is. I suppose any number of other sources would've worked; this was simply the first one that I came across. Thanks Dubc0724 14:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Redirect Error[edit]

I suggest you read my closing statement at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of New Jersey at Durham. Petros471 13:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editing articles[edit]

There seems to be a misconception among some editors here about citing sources. I cite sources for edits that I make, not to correct or support claims that other editors make. If a citation is called for, the responsibility of finding it falls on the person making the claim; I resent you saying that the cites you added are added for me ... they are added to make the article truthful and NPOV. Duke53 | ^Talk 17:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make those edits either, but I still took it upon myself to cite them. My comments were only to reflect that it would be helpful to actually add sources if you feel an article is deficient, rather than solely rely on the work of others. Dubc0724 01:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. You view my asking for sources as a form of 'passive vandalism' and your comments reflect that. I will add citations for data that I add to an article; you can do anything you please, but leave my name out of it. I don't care if you cite sources for additions when others neglect to do so; I will continue to ask for sources and delete uncited sections when they aren't verified. Duke53 | ^Talk 01:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I stand by my comments/edits on that article. You asked for citations and I provided them. I only asked that you consider actually looking for sources rather than adding tags and moving on. It might be more productive that way. As for "passive vandalism", all I have to go on is what I see. What I don't see is you littering Duke articles with fact tags the way you do Carolina, etc. If it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck... Dubc0724 14:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... if a guy gives two different stories about why he's making the comments chances are that one of the versions is a lie. Duke53 | ^Talk 16:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? The two responses I've made here are consistent with one another. I don't follow what you're attemtping to imply. Dubc0724 17:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You said that your comments (including " ... perhaps you could help look for sources rather than just stick 30 tags on an article"? and " adding another source for duke53") were only asking " ... that you consider actually looking for sources rather than adding tags . *cough* _BS *cough*. They were a commentary on me asking for sources. Duke53 | ^Talk 19:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC) p.s. You aren't the only one who is " ... having a great time with an editor who likes to use fact tags as passive vandalism".[reply]

I never denied that I was commenting on your usage of fact tags (if that's what you're trying to imply here). Here's what I did:

I provided sources for you, and yes, I mentioned your name in doing so. After all, you were the one asking for them. [Seems fair enough.]
I commented that perhaps you'd like to join in and constructively help the article by finding the one or some of the sources you are requesting, rather than depend solely on the work of others. [Also seems fair enough.]
I compared the treatment of articles/claims you seem to favor (no tags) to those articles/claims you seem to dislike (lots of tags). [Maybe unfair - just calling it as I've seen it thus far.]

I'm not sure how you're concluding that I am "BS"-ing. I think I've made myself pretty clear. Dubc0724 19:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will type this slowly: You should have been adding sources to make the article better, not to make a point to anyone; if sources weren't cited for those claims then they should (and would) have been deleted. You took it upon yourself to add citations ... pin a rose on your nose. Be proud. Duke53 | ^Talk 19:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No kidding; that's the point of this whole exercise. Obviously the sources enhance the article. (It also makes the article easier to read without ^{[citation needed]} after every other sentence.) I will concede that your fact tagging is still helping improve the UNC articles, regardless of your intentions. So it all works out in the end. Thanks, Dubc0724 20:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Guitarists Newsletter - Issue II - October 2006[edit]

The October 2006 issue of the WikiProject Guitarists newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Aguerriero (talk) 20:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Disambiguation Talk Request[edit]

This is a form message being sent to all WikiProject Disambiguation participants. I recently left a proposed banner idea on the WikiProject Disambiguation talk page and I would appreciate any input you could provide. Before it can be approved or denied, I would prefer a lot of feedback from multiple participants in the project. So if you have the time please join in the discussion to help improve the WikiProject. Keep up the good work in link repair and thanks for your time. Nehrams2020 21:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MedCab case[edit]

Hi, thanks for posting your MedCab case and sorry for not replying earlier. Would it be ok if I copied the details of your case to to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, because they probably would be more able to resolve this disagreement. Addhoc 21:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That will be fine. My apologies for posting it in the wrong spot. Thanks! Dubc0724 12:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm PMC, the administrator who "took over" your MedCab case. I understand that you may feel strongly about what's going on, and about Duke's behavior, but I would appreciate it if you could possibly ignore him for now, instead of arguing with him on his Talk page. Arguing will only escalate this issue into something ArbCom-worthy, and I'm sure no one wants to go there over this. Additionally, if you could leave off editing Duke/UNC articles for the time being, that would help. And finally, if you are going to argue with him, which I do not advise, please refrain from comments such as "you'll just be talking out of your ass as usual." Thank you. If you have any questions, please see my Talk. ♠P M C♠ 20:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I know I lost my cool. Sorry about that And I've added my final reply to Duke on his usertalk page, and I won't bring it up again. We'll just let Wikipedia run its course. Again, sorry for probably making the situation worse by arguing. Thanks for trying to help. Dubc0724 17:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UNC and Duke[edit]

I am trying to keep the information on Wikipedia with respect to UNC and Duke encyclopedic and not inflammatory. I would appreciate your help in achieving this goal by, for example, not creating redirects or web pages whose only nature serves to insult or attack one of the schools. Please let me know if you think this might be achievable. If you look at my contributions, you will see what I have done in this regard. DukeEGR93 13:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. First, I have not created any redirects. I created one article that was eventually deleted and turned into a redirect. The resulting redirect was deleted. I don't feel that the UNJD article attacked or maligned anyone; it simply explained the origin of a widely used nickname. The article was deleted because it was determined to be "non-notable".

I did not create the "Carowhina" redirect, and I did not make the original "Dook" entry, although I have reverted its blanking once or twice. I fail to see how censoring, suppressing, or ignoring certain aspects of a topic serves the best interests of Wikipedia. Call me a cynic, but I also find it interesting that the only editors taking issue with 2 Duke nicknames also have "Duke" in their usernames. Respectfully, Dubc0724 13:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry - I did not mean to imply that you participated in or created those pages, just that those were the pages in question for a variety of disparaging or attacking remarks. I am assuming good faith, but the parallel interest one might have with respect to the speed with which those edits were reversed is that it was at the pen of two users with UNC Infoboxes. DukeEGR93 15:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just got your note - with respect to Remember, I added a note to that person's talk page due to the speed with which Dook was changed to again include an incendiary disambig. DukeEGR93 15:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No offense taken, just wanted to clear up any confusion about what I did or did not create. Dubc0724 17:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, you did just re-add the disambig link. You cite google, but none of the links that come up is NPOV or not WP. I guess this goes up a step. DukeEGR93 17:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do they have to be "NPOV" to prove that it exists? I'm not using them as citations; I'm using them to prove that the nickname is very commonplace throughout collegiate sports. Dubc0724 18:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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/Dook, 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.

Got the messages - agreed on the compromise, and thanks for proposing it. I put in a helpme to see about removing the mediation request and I'll go over to MedCab and delist. Glad to have gotten this done - hopefully I will get the time to add to the UNC pages - there is a lot of important history that's not on there yet. DukeEGR93 02:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gail[edit]

While I agree the information belongs in the article, it may be a bit much to call its removal "vandalism".[2] I would suggest an edit summary more like "Information restored as per Talk page". Best, Johntex\^talk 17:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I regretted it immediately. I got trigger happy due to the anonymous edit. My bad. Dubc0724 17:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

North Carolina Tar Heels[edit]

I just made the page North Carolina Tar Heels so there could be a page that specifically talks about North Carolina athletics (like many of the other college athletic pages). I thought you might be interested in making this page better. Remember 21:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I didn't even realize there wasn't one. Good idea. ThanksDubc0724 22:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia[edit]

Well, all the deletions in the trivia that you made were restored by Remember except that one about the rivalry's recent results (as far as I can tell). Although, to be fair, only two out of the three statistics restored by Remember were favorable to UNC so it wasn't a complete sweep. Cheers! -152.3.84.110 05:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look into it. That's why I wanted to cut down on some of the "trivia"; it turns into a contest between the two sides and gets rather lengthy. Thanks Dubc0724 12:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UNC-Duke scores[edit]

I checked his edits and they appeared to be fine, but I had made several errors in the scores that had gone unnoticed. I have checked these scores over, but if you could check it against the scores listed on deja blue I would appreciate it. Remember 13:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good deal. I'll doublecheck them as well. Dubc0724 19:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UNC template[edit]

I have tried to create a template for UNC like other schools have and I was hoping you could help me make it better. Check out of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and let me know what you think. I modeled it off of the Duke Template, but it still needs lots of revisions. Remember 15:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So any thoughts on this Template:University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill? Remember 12:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had a chance to really look at it (and I don't know much about templates), but it looks like a good start. I should have some time later and will try to improve where I can. Dubc0724 13:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chaos is fun[edit]

Sorry for taking so long to reply... but basically if you want to delist the case just change the "status" listing on the info template thingy from "open" to "closed". We have a super-bot program that automatically removes it from the list and archives it and stuff. --The Prophet Wizard of the Cray on Cake 01:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tar Heel article[edit]

I have vastly changed the Tar Heel article and was hoping you would take a look at it to make sure it looks okay. Remember 18:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I set up the Rameses article and I thought you might be interested in that. I have totally gotten sucked into wikipedia today. Remember 19:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the "botched joke" thing[edit]

That's just it- I didn't see any comments suggesting moving it elsewhere, and your comment appeared just after my suggestion/declaration of moving the section elsewhere in the article.

But all's well that ends well. Onward and upward. --DarthBinky 16:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a Mediation Cabal Case[edit]

You have been listed as an invloved party in a recently opened Mediation Cabal case ("UNC Carolina nicknames and links"). I will begin reviewing the case. Please write a comment representative of your view or a compromise offer. -- ßott e siηi ^(talk) 17:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Smith article as good article candidate[edit]

I thought you would like to know that I put the Dean Smith article up for a good article candidate and someone has provided some feedback on it. It appears not much has to be done to get it to GA status. Remember 19:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Predatory Lending[edit]

Hey, I have an interest in predatory lending. If you have an interest in working to improve the article, I would like to offer to help. I dislike doing a bunch of work on an article, only to have a protracted fight over every word of it, so I am hoping that if you give me some instruction as to what you would like the article to be, maybe you and I and others can reach a general consensus.

LegCircus 20:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - it's been a while since I looked at that article; I'll take a peek and see if anything jumps out that needs improving. Thanks Dubc0724 21:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About FAIR[edit]

I corrected "media watch dog" to "liberal media watch dog" to be more accurate. But you reverted it, for unknown reason and without giving any explication. First of all, it's not a mainstream and recognized organization, it's a self-described media-watch dog. Second, It's obvious their criticism is made from a liberal perspective, and even Columbia Journalism Review described it as a "liberal media watchdog". I am going to revert it again if there is no objection. vincent_shooter 10:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there was an edit mistake, I also added "liberal" as that's the angle they use. No disagreement on my part, whatsoever. If I made a mistake that resulted in a revert, my apologies. Dubc0724 15:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

edits to Bluegrass[edit]

Hi, I noticed that the colors on the Bluegrass article are messed up. It looks like the last revert you did only removed one of the vandal's edits. The other one messed up the color scheme. I would fix it but I have to log off now. Thanks.-Crunchy Numbers 21:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Highway 101[edit]

I created this

and I'm not sure if it would work. I'm interested in what you think, since you were the last person to update the article. Well let me know, if it seems like it's not needed, please feel free to change back to other version. Thanks for your help :-) Tamara4006

I thought you might like to know that[edit]

Dean Smith is the Good Article collaboration of the week. Hopefully, this will get it up to FA status. Remember 15:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Nickel Creek[edit]

	Hi! I've seen you around on Nickel Creek related articles... Would you consider becoming a member of WikiProject Nickel Creek, a WikiProject which aims to expand and improve coverage of Nickel Creek on Wikipedia? Please feel free to join us.
Todo:

I saw you created the Not All Who Wander Are Lost article. Thought you might want to join! If not, that's ok! Thamusemeantfan 05:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject College football December 2007 Newsletter[edit]

The December 2007 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Series of tubes[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Series of tubes, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Series of tubes. Thank you. --BJBot (talk) 02:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:G01939.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:G01939.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject College football January 2008 Newsletter[edit]

The January 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject College football February 2008 Newsletter[edit]

The February 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject College football March 2008 Newsletter[edit]

The March 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Invite[edit]

Century Tower

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject University of Florida, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of University of Florida. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks!

Jccort (talk) 03:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject College football April 2008 Newsletter[edit]

The April 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject College football May 2008 Newsletter[edit]

The May 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject College football June 2008 Newsletter[edit]

The June 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill[edit]

You're listed as a major contributor to the article. Do you have any objections to it being nominated as a Featured Article? Hippo (talk) 00:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD: EverythingCU.com[edit]

Hi there, Dubc0724. I believe you've worked on credit unions and related articles on wikipedia in the past. It would be great if you weighed in on the AfD (2nd time) for EverythingCU.com. Though I've contributed to wikipedia for a while new, I still feel like a newbie, so I hope it's not wrong of me to ask you to weigh in on this one. Thank you! --Mmpartee (talk) 18:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject College football July 2008 Newsletter[edit]

The July 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Suttongry.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Suttongry.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject College football August 2008 Newsletter[edit]

The August 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject College football September 2008 Newsletter[edit]

The September 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)[edit]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator). 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 "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/Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) (3rd nomination). 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) 01:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

College Football Project request[edit]

Hello! You are listed as an active member of the College Football Project! We have a large number of unreferenced biographies of living persons, but it works out to be just two or three articles per active participant. I've divided up the articles that need help and put them in a table on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Unreferenced BLPs. Please assist the project by researching and sourcing the articles that have been "assigned" (so to speak) to you.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Leonard Blush[edit]

The article Leonard Blush has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fictional character with no significant claim to Notability

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sadads (talk) 09:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 13:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]