User talk:John Nevard/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, John Nevard, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! CWC 11:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Regarding your question, there has been some ongoing removal of the same content by sockpuppets as of late. I should have paid a little more attention to your removal of sourced material, but given recent events I simply thought you were another SSP pushing the same agenda. You should note, however, that your comments (both in the edit summary and in the verbiage of your question to me) are both pretentious and unhelpful -- a little bit of civility goes a long way. Thanks for the inquiry. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, heh... and 'should note' isn't? John Nevard 23:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back, if sockpuppets were editing in the same way I was I heartily endorse their actions. The content I removed was anti-FNC opinion (which Wikipedia isn't, you know, supposed to be), 'supported' by a source that had absolutely nothing to do with the content- except that it related to politics and the media. I've seen bad sourcing before, but this was almost deliberately poor. John Nevard (talk) 04:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PMOI

Thanks for your edits to the PMOI article. Every so often it gets attacked by pro-Iranian or Pro-PMOI people, so it's nice to know someone else is keeping an eye on the article! Dchall1 (talk) 15:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re. Egyptians

Thanks for the suggestion. No, I haven't considered it before though it would be nice to have the pictures link directly to the relevant articles. I took a look at the template you mentioned. It uses a complex esoteric code [1] I am wholly unfamiliar with and do not have the technical savvy to be able to undertake something like that. Maybe someone more capable than me would choose to do it in the future. — Zerida 21:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

r.e. GHB

Thanks, although I think you may be giving me too much credit! :) Halogenated (talk) 18:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit

Was curious as to your rationale for this edit.[2]. Ordinarily one does not edit other people's user pages. I assume you meant no harm, which is why I am genuinely curious.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 16:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Interestingly, I never even knew it was a foreign language template. I just borrowed it from somebody.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 13:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

USA actively supported Saddam against Iran.

USA actively supported Saddam. take responsibility. have guts. What you are saying is that no one should speak about the American crimes. Not only Iranair flight 655 and the famous Handshake between the two old buddies Saddam and Rumsfeld, but the USA bombed Iranian islands and oil platform and violated the Iranian territorial waters. This is an obvious act of war. bastaNota bene I am civil and I do not see any reason to assume good faith when you systematically remove any information which shows that USA supported Saddam actively against Iran.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 12:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. In hindsight, my edit summary here probably violated this- though at the time I was amused that anyone would claim that the US was a 'combatant' in the ->Iran-Iraq<- War. The user concerned is quickly building up a history of unbalanced and illiterate editing on Iran-related articles. John Nevard (talk) 05:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also if you want to prove me wrong you should lower your anti-Iranianist drive. Anti-Iranianism is as bad as anti-semitism or black hatred or as bad as hating whites. It is in the cathegory of irrational hatred based on ethic background. I do not say that you are doing it consciously but by being controversial and selective on Iranian issues you suggest this. Do not write history because of your assumption. Historical facts are known. And one should respect them even if they are bitter to them. I myself do with regard to Iran. I would not deny the wrong doings of Iranian rulers in hhistory, but it is amazing that the so many ordinary Americans talk good the crimes of their rulers. Look how unfair it is. Ahmadinejad won in a controversial non-free election by deception, force and fraude, while Bush won the elections in the USA in free democratic election TWO times. BUSH's record of human disaster is much higher than that of Ahmafdinejad, yet it is the Iranian people who should suffer under economic and military sanctions, and not those American people. Is it fair? NO. Do not be a chauvinist American and open your eyes. No one holds you responsible, but if you talk good crimes you are wrong--Babakexorramdin (talk) 10:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the most dishonest and arrogant edits n this issues were yours. Also your intervention in other Iranian sites shows 1- Yor irrational hatred towards Iranians 2- Your lack of knowledge of those issues--Babakexorramdin (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be in relation to some type editing on Iran-related articles I did while checking to see how widely a certain editor spread his opinions through articles. John Nevard (talk) 03:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Insofar as I have an agenda, it is to reveal facts, so that when they can be and are revealed they will speak for themselves. I am not an American, and diatribes against me and them speak much about those concerned. I made a mistake in dismissing inappropriate edits against an established consensus for referenced, sensible facts on the Iran-Iraq War article by Babakexorramdin earlier as a joke, as I have noted. I have made no inappropriate edits since then, I leave this, and his edits to various talk pages, up to anyone interested to judge. John Nevard (talk) 05:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also not an admin. I find that Wikipedia admins are generally reasonable, and where I have a difference of opinion and a reasonable, valid argument that bears upon an article I can compromise with them. When people have problems with this process, it causes problems for Wikipedia articles and the Wikipedia community. I failed to act in a completely upright way with a previous account, which is the primary reason I now operate with this account. John Nevard (talk) 05:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But even today you again deleted USA froim the list, when there is athe general consensus, and that the facts show and the definition of your suggested dictionary shows it. The fact is USA fought against Iran in the Iran-Iraq war. It does make nbo sense to deny this when all facts shows it. Please respect the facts and let Wikipedia be an obnjective source. Thanks --Babakexorramdin (talk) 07:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See [3] for the edit with a dishonest edit summary that preceded this. John Nevard (talk) 07:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance of quote

I understood the relevance of the quote was that Bush was refusing to apologise for the shoot down. If so, this makes the quote directly relevant to the article. What's your take on it? --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is not the reference to Newsweek "explicit, provable context"? --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Hi

Thanks John. I hadn't ever dug through NameBase before. It's actually rather interesting. In two clicks I found someone involved in that whole Iraq incubator propaganda story I remember from my youth. Anyway, I had Wikipedia Watch off my list for a while, but if you look through the history, it was merged, and then slowly over the next month all the sources were deleted, and it was reduced to a brief one sentence mention. That's not how an WP:Encyclopedia should work; note that we have a {{expand}} template and no corresponding {{reduce}} template (that's actually for tagging overly big graphic files). So I resurrected it after I saw the slow-mo/sneaky vandal involved get banned from the project. There's no reason to treat this website different from any other. If anything, we should be treating it with the utmost care lest we be accused of trying to bury our critics. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By Air

Hello John Nevard. How do you do? I am Nightshadow28. And done.[4] --Nightshadow28 (talk) 13:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice little fix to "Snapping." Wowest (talk) 07:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

REname

Good times!--Alph Tech STUART (talk) 14:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overstock.com

John, I posted a note in Overstock.com re the reversion. There seems to be a split opinion on this so I'm not going to revert, and frankly I'm a bit undecided myself seeing two editors I respect taking opposing views on this subject. Let's discuss.--Samiharris (talk) 17:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Derefer Templates in Perverted-Justice Article

Per custom, I responded to your comment on my Talk Page right below it. Please direct your attention there for my reply. ~ Homologeo (talk) 07:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fact tag

These tags mean "please provide a source." If you're aware of one, please include it. If not, the tag should stay so that someone else can cite a source. Cool Hand Luke 08:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied here. [5] John Nevard (talk) 09:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No person nor organization is quoted using those words in either article. I'm not sure where they came from. Even if he was being quoted, we should identify him, as the articles do. Also, this article doesn't say anything like "it has never been profitable over a full fiscal year." That may be true, but you should feel free to apply your own fact tag until it is verified. Cool Hand Luke 09:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

In case you hadn't noticed, see bottom of [6]. --Mantanmoreland (talk) 15:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re crush video

I forwarded the link to this video to an attorney who will make sure it gets to the justice dept. They have been very successful in getting ISP's to pull the videos and a bit less so at finding who made them.Bob98133 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haha

You're making my point though. Even when you're intentionally trying to imitate him, you did it wrong. "Talk" should be capitalized. Cool Hand Luke 18:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pol64

That is odd. I've posted a note on the editor's talk page asking for an explanation. Thanks for the heads-up. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wah!

You could have asked. What's your ulterior motive for running off to a sympathetic admin to whine about it instead of simply asking yourself? • VigilancePrime • • • 15:55 (UTC) 4 Mar '08

It could be because I couldn't think of any reasonable explanation for spamming a page -- whose very title has been determined to push a pedophile-POV in a number of deletions, both from the main page and from userspace -- onto the userpage of a editor who was banned for their determination to fight pedophile activists on Wikipedia. Or it could be because I'm whining. But I have to say I'm leaning towards the first explanation. John Nevard (talk) 21:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please allow me to correct some of your inaccurate statements:

The title has been used in mass media, including USA Today. The "number of deletions" you reference, only one was demed delete, and that was contrary to consensus.
You sound as though you are attempting to call me out as a pedophile in an indirect way. Does this constitute a personal attack?
The edit wa immediately reverted; how is that spamming? For that matter, how is it spamming at all?
I am suspect of how you even came across that edit... searching through every edit I've ever made? That was a month ago and only now is anyone bring it up. Thoughts anyone?
You explicitly accuse me of bad motives in that edit without even asking me or looking at it en total. Instead, you go charging off to an admin to make accusations. Thoughts on this?

Your bad faith in this matter reeks, John. Your abuse of the process is right there beside it.

The final correction to what is surely an intentional misrepresentation and mistruth: Pol64 was not banned for fighting against bias. Quite the opposite, actually, and Pol was banned for making threats to other Wikipedians.

Next time you come after me, please get your facts straight first. • VigilancePrime • • • 22:29 (UTC) 4 Mar '08

Reply here. Apparently I am guilty of generalizing and being too specific in a stealthy way. John Nevard (talk) 04:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Naked short selling

Regarding this reversion [7] I STRONGLY suggest you not do that. If you have issues, raise them on the talk page. You appear to have at first glance removed well sourced information without any talk page justification. This article is an area of intense community focus and that just isn't wise. I hope that advice is sufficient. ++Lar: t/c 14:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks for that. That would be why I explained on the talk page of the user who reverted me that I had missed that the edits were not simply an attempt to remove the repeated failure of naked short selling suits. John Nevard (talk) 21:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. In future for traceability, it may be best to follow up to the talk page itself. (because your revert was mentioned in an ArbCom case, referenced as an example of how problematic working on the article is likely to be) ++Lar: t/c 21:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert at 9/11 conspiracy theories

You reverted my edit at 9/11 conspiracy theories, but you did not bother to explain your action at the discussion that had been taking place over the proposed edit. Your comment on your edit was simply "rv'ing from a deletion based on failed rationale". That says nothing. A detailed argument had been presented for this change. It was not refuted except for vague statements that didn't address the key points of the argument at all. After which those opposing the change seemed to give up, which is when I decided to go ahead with the deletion. Then you come in from nowhere and decide to reverse the edit without any consultation or effort to explain your reasoning. If you think the rationale is bad then it is up to you to demonstrate that. I have reverted your revert. Next time you had better discuss the matter before you do anything. ireneshusband (talk) 18:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, I will never revert again before personally addressing a genius rationale for deleting highly relevant information, and the introductory sentence to a section, as good as 'such and such has been accused of participating in the silly conspiracy theory by some random conspiracy theorist- thus his credibility is highly suspect'. Or an argument-closer like 'I don't see you endorsing silly conspiracy theorists- play fair'. John Nevard (talk) 18:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that sarcasm? That sometimes doesn't work very well. ++Lar: t/c 18:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UE & RA

Yo John, just wanted to drop a quick note to let you know that I fixed the {{Reflist}} tag on the Universal Express article for you (was the {{Unreferenced}} tag instead) and created a page for Richard Altomare (only a redirect to the UE page for now). Hope that helps! Happy Editing! • VigilancePrime • • • 04:40 (UTC) 12 Mar '08

PPA

HI --

When you have a chance, would you take a look at this PPA talk page section and recent article edits? Thanks... --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damir H.

Hrm, thanks for the heads up. --Golbez (talk) 05:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war

Thanks for the category tweaking. I'd like your opinion on an alternative approach, which I believe to be accurate although it may inflame some POV's.

While the text in the main article does not use the term "scandal", that term is used by politicians and journalists with specific reference to the BNL banking matter, the size of which I did not realize until I started researching it.

If you care to look at a userspace draft of a rewritten article, see User:Hcberkowitz/Sandbox-U.S. support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. It goes into more detail, and has work yet to do, on what may fairly be called financial scandals. What I've been trying to bring out in this article is a factually-based, NPOV discussion of the direct support the US provided to Iraq.

You will notice that I took references to the Tanker War out of this draft, although I do expect to wikilink to it. It is my sincere belief that two largely independent wars took place at roughly the same time: Iran-Iraq, and Iran-US. I do not believe that there is other than circumstantial evidence that the Tanker War was initiated to help Iraq against Iran. Rather, I believe it was largely about the historically strong US position on freedom of navigation, which goes back to the War of 1812 and Barbary Wars, and as recently as the "line of death" patrols in the Gulf of Sidra.

I don't know if there can be a consensus to call these two conflicts generally related but not linked, but, IMHO, it becomes much easier to follow US actions and their rationale if the Tanker War is not treated as a subset of the Iran-Iraq War. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 15:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The draft flows nicely. John Nevard (talk) 03:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Summaries and civility

I understand that it can be difficult editing in contentious topics, and easy to loose one's cool with POV pushers. However, edit summaries such as this one are out of line, and can result in a block for incivility. Keep up the good work, and try to bite your tongue next time. Pastordavid (talk) 16:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:ViolaWWW plotDemo.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:ViolaWWW plotDemo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 17:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Lowe's

Disagree that mentioning the legislative aspect of the backlash is sufficient - as you can see in the material you removed, newspapers have devoted entire articles to other criticism/reaction. (I agree with removing the Daily Show unless the episode is talked about in secondary sources, and I don't think it's necessary to name actors who called for a boycott, but the fact that multiple people/groups have proposed a boycott, as covered in reliable sources, ought to be mentioned; possibly ditto legislators' comments. What do you think?) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Militia (Italian neo-Nazi group), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Italian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Henry B. Mann

Hi John!

Thanks for catching the error in the lede of the Henry B. Mann article. I had misrememberd Connife as the source of the claim, which is documented in the body as coming from Johnson.

Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:41, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More than fair enough. Cheers. Nevard (talk) 14:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:LangusTxT

Drop me a line if you have further problems with that editor. Thanks. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1RR

The article Roger Casement, along with other articles relating to The Troubles, is currently subject to [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_

arbitration/The_Troubles#Final_remedies_for_AE_case|active arbitration remedies]], as laid out during a previous Arbitration Enforcement case that closed in October 2007, and was amended by community consensus in October 2008. The current restrictions are:

All editors on Troubles-related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions.
All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per day). When in doubt, assume it is related.
- Clear vandalism, or edits by anonymous IP editors, may be reverted without penalty
Editors who violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the guidelines laid out in the above link. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it on this talk page first. Thank you.

---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 15:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Kinkade

I happen to agree with you about Kinkade. Anything that makes lots of people happy enough that they gladly will pay lots for it is a good thing. Curious why you made this edit? The original said that critics hated EVERYTHING he did, which is not true. I added the word "later" to works which is much milder. I'm not adding it back but you may want to. I don't care for his pictures but I don't represent myself as being able to tell other folks what they should like. I'm not sure who crowned these critics the infallible arbitrators of art. --Javaweb (talk) 19:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hădăreni riots

FYI AI produced this report which includes comment on police involvement in this case. It contrasts considerably with your edit. RashersTierney (talk) 11:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 28

Hi. When you recently edited Wiesel AWC, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Direct-injection (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Nexus (magazine)

The article Nexus (magazine) has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

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. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Deb (talk) 17:32, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John T. Downey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Red China (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 2013

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Hawker Hunter, you may be blocked from editing. Note that this edit of yours is considered as a sneaky vandalism, the original text in the publication made no mention of Indonesia being an enemy of Singapore. While this and this runs smack of you repeatedly adding your own personal unencyclopedic opinion into an actual page of Wikipedia, by definition an actual online ENCYCLOPEDIA. Knock it off before the hammer comes down on you. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 19:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Geez.. heard of taking the time to read references? Been here longer than you, boy. Nevard (talk) 07:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise keep your commentary to your weblog. POV is not allowed here as you did at the Westgate shootuing page.(Lihaas (talk) 21:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)).[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Nick Spanos

I'm removing this norice, because it's irrelevant - I speedy tagged the page because it had changed from the redirect you created in 2011 to a promotion piece for another person called Nick Spanos. Twinkle automatically informed you, because I was careless and didn't uncheck that box. My apologies. --bonadea contributions talk 13:09, 16 August 2015 (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) 13:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, John Nevard. 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]