User talk:Nicolharper

Welcome!

Hello, Nicolharper, 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:Where to ask a question, 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! Dr Debug (Talk) 16:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to look up this topic on wikipedia, but there was nothing listing all the types of animal that glide, so I decided to make one. I'll clean it up when I get a chance.

Flying and Gliding Animals

Hi Nicolharper, I would just like to thank you on your work with Flying and Gliding Animals. You're doing a great job, and its a very useful article. When you've finished it, tell me, and I might as well award you something nice! Best of luck, --Chachu207 18:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC) PS. If you want to reply, can you do so via my user talk page.[reply]

Greetings

Just noted you poking around some mammal pages recently. Let me know if I can be of any help with anything. We should probably delete the glow-in-the-dark bit on the Godman's Rock Wallaby page if there isn't a reply there soon. --Aranae 18:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you often make many edits to an article in succession. Did you happen to notice the "Show preview" button underneath the edit summary? This will show you what the page looks like without actually saving it. --Aranae 00:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flying gecko image

I uploaded Ptychozoon_kuhli_underside.jpg, it isn't a great image, blurred out at the top - my camera isn't up to snuff when it comes to moving subjects, but it does demonstrate the flaps of skin on the legs, feet, sides of the body, and "ear" area on the sides of the head quite well. I just thought you might be interested, from your article on flying and gliding animals. Cheers. -Dawson 22:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary reminder

When editing please remember to always provide an edit summary. This informs other Wikipedians of the purpose of your edit and reduces the potential for misunderstandings and disputes. Providing an edit summary also helps identify vandalism (as most vandals do not provide edit summaries). Thryduulf 23:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Savanna Theory

Nicol, I noticed you still didn't vote. That and improving an article are the best way for you to contribute in getting a pesky AfD tag removed. --Aranae 19:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aranae. Maybe I should vote. The savanna hypothesis article needs a lot of work and I am not bothered that much if it is deleted. However, some of the older versions of the article are more coherent. However, savanna hypothesis is a term that is actually used by a number of people, and for that reason I tip slightly against deletion. Also I don't know how to vote. Nicolharper 19:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just go here and add your input to the bottom of the list. The standard format is: *'''Your vote (keep, delete or other'''. Explanation of why you feel this way. Just see how others have formatted the votes. You've stuck to doing a lot of quality editing on a small set of articles. Otherwise I'd think you would have come across articles nominated for deletion after the amount of time and editing you've done. You'll certainly see it again. --Aranae 20:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Aranae, and thanks for the positive comments on my editing. Nicolharper 20:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I think the type of work you've added to pages like Flying and gliding animals, venomous mammals, Terrestrial locomotion in animals, Cat righting reflex, limbless vertebrates, knuckle-walking, Prehensile tail, and Malagasy fauna are precisely the sort of encyclopedic, education oriented, comparative evolutionary additions that biology-related topics are needing here. --Aranae 21:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly reminder. Don't forget to hit the "Show preview" button and check over your edits before hitting "Save page". It can save you time and clean up the edit history. --Aranae 21:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aranae. Thanks for adding the Nesomyinae to the malagasy fauna page. I had never heard of these, they look like another interesting case of convergent evolution in madagascar.

Happily. There was a really nice article in Systematic Biology a few months back attempting to use molecular clocks to time the colonization events of the four mammal groups on the island. I'll see if I can incorporate some of that. --Aranae 04:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Message to you on the Battle of Tours talk page

Nicolharper , Please see the message I left you on the talk page on the Battle of Tours article. Thanks!old windy bear 16:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Beeinflightfromfront.jpg

Thank you for uploading images/media such as Image:Beeinflightfromfront.jpg to Wikipedia! There is however another Wikimedia foundation project called Wikimedia Commons, a central media repository for all free media. In the future, please consider creating an account and uploading media there instead. That way, all the other language Wikipedias can use them too, as well as our many sister projects. This will also allow our visitors to search for, view and use our media in one central location. If you wish to move previous uploads to Commons, see Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons (you may view images you have previously uploaded by going to your user contributions on the left and choosing the 'image' namespace from the drop down box). Please note that non-free content, such as images claimed as fair use, cannot be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons. Help us spread the word about Commons by informing other users, and please continue uploading!

Richard001 03:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EL

Please note that the external links policy states that links should be limited to only the most useful and relevant, but contain information that is not suitable for inclusion in the page itself. Links that are useful but limited may be added as inline citations or references. Links themsevles should be kept to a minimum. WLU 16:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why the revert on bipedalism? Would you like me to explain why I am removing specific links? I'd like to revert to my version, or at least discuss it. WLU 20:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, there's a more detailed discussion of the external links on bipedalism [1]. WLU 00:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to revert, please have the courtesy to respond to my points on the talk page at least. Right now, I see you reverting without giving a reason, which looks like vandalism. WLU 01:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since we are at somewhat of a deadlock on bipedalism, I'm bringing this up for a WP:3O third opinion. I still consider the links to be in violation of WP:EL and do not need to be replaced. WLU 13:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tips on Brachiation Article

I see that you have done significant work on the page for Climbing Animals and was wondering if you would take a look at my revisions to Brachiation and offer some tips and/or criticism on it. I just started using Wikipedia so I am still new with its features and would appreciate any help you could give me.

Mrhelmers —Preceding comment was added at 20:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of bipedalism

Could you explain why you reverted to your previous version of a page, undoing a tremendous amount of editing, with basically no explanation, no discussion on the talk page, and reverting to a version that contained numerous external links which a third opinion said were not necessary? Even a partial revert or edit of the specific areas could have retained or altered the information you felt was relevant without restoring the external links. I don't mind my editing itself being edited, or its wording being changed, but a blanket revert seems extreme, and wipes out a large amout of text that was added, not to mention citation templates. The Wading Hypothesis section which you reverted to, contained no link to the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis, and mentioned the no-name Kuliukas, who has no wikipedia page, just a personal webpage, and no reason that I can see to retain mention of his name. If you see no merit to the vast amount of changes that have been made to the page, please bring this up on the talk page so I can understand why eight of my edits of good faith have to be discarded, as well as Mild Bill Hiccup's grammatical correction.

Thanks, WLU 19:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear WLU,

A few of my objections are

1) You say there are five different instances of bipedalism. We do not know this. For example perhaps bipedalism re-evolved many times within the line that includes dinosaurs. Better to just put what we know.

2) The exceptional cases section is lost. This section mostly talks about learnt or medical cases of bipedalism. It has been combined with mammals which are sometimes bipedal in their natural lifestyle. These are quite different reasons for bipedalism.

3) Details on the advantages of bipedalism have been lost.

4) The headings in the overview section are unsystematic.

I am at least as justified in reverting your, to my mind, mistaken edits, as you are to have made them. You have no problem in deleting others contributions without discussing first, so you can’t rightly object when others, to your mind, do the same to your edits ( Although in fact I gave my reasons in the edit summary). All the best, Nicolharper 22:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My 'five different' is sourced to one of the entries you thought should be an external link. The standard for external links is actually higher than it is for WP:RS. Why should it be an external link, but not a source for inline citation? And note that every single instance of bipedalism is linked to its own wikipage, in which bipedal animals are shown.
I rarely delete information. What I think I did was integrate the exceptional cases into other sections. Perhaps you should look into Bipedalism#Limited bipedalism in other species and Bipedalism#Limited bipedalism in mammals. Is the information you thought lost instead there? And consider re-adding the information you consider missing rather than blanket reverting, which fails to assume good faith for my changes.
Again, consider re-adding the advantages rather than blanket reverting.
If the headings are unacceptable, BE BOLD and change the headings. Don't blanket revert.
I've brought it up with an admin (User:Isotope23) to ask for another third opinion. WLU 00:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WLU,

1) My 'five different' is sourced to one of the entries you thought should be an external link. The standard for external links is actually higher than it is for WP:RS. Why should it be an external link, but not a source for inline citation? And note that every single instance of bipedalism is linked to its own wikipage, in which bipedal animals are shown.

The article you source appears to contain some useful facts, but the 'five different' point is poorly made in the article. Bipedalism in giant pangolins, which are not mentioned in the article, rules out the claim that bipedalism evolved five times. Furthermore, it could have evolved multiple times within some of the groups mentioned. With regards to external links, I simply think it better to keep the external links until better ones can be found. I think it is better to improve than delete.

2) I rarely delete information. What I think I did was integrate the exceptional cases into other sections. Perhaps you should look into Bipedalism#Limited bipedalism in other species and Bipedalism#Limited bipedalism in mammals. Is the information you thought lost instead there? And consider re-adding the information you consider missing rather than blanket reverting, which fails to assume good faith for my changes.

At least on this page you have often deleted information in what I would call an unproductive way. In the advantages sections you deleted details on actual advantageous bipedal behaviours (which could be cut, due to redundancy with previous sections, but not as much a you did), for example that other sense than vision may be aided by bipedalism or that racoons wade. From exceptional cases section the information on learnt novel bipedalism in humans and dogs was lost. It is not like it is a long article and there is no room.

Your edits also contain a number of errors and problems. For example, the advantages section was clearer using bullet points, and you list as octopus arms and skunk anal glands as forelimbs, which they are not.

3)Again, consider re-adding the advantages rather than blanket reverting.

Consider not deleting it.

4)If the headings are unacceptable, BE BOLD and change the headings. Don't blanket revert.

Consider not making the headings unsystematic in the first place.

5) I've brought it up with an admin (User:Isotope23) to ask for another third opinion. WLU 00:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do you do that? I should like to do that sometimes.

Given these problems, I am afraid that the most efficient thing to do was to revert, but bearing in mind some of your edits as possible inspirations for future alterations. Cheers, Nicolharper 01:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your 'efficiency' was unnecessary, since the points you made are spurious - I've addressed them below.

Either you're reverting to prove a WP:POINT, or you're just reflexively reverting out of spite. Either one can get you blocked.

The wording has changed to state multiple rather than five. Which would be an easy edit to make, rather than than reverting the whole thing, which discards the contributions of myself and two other users. Your revert also means that you have considered the seven edits I made between noon and three on the 29th completely without merit. And that you consider the 3O to be similarly without merit. You may 'simply think' they should be replaced, but two other users, involving a recognized process for resolving disagreements, disagree. The next step would be a request for comment, NOT a revert. If a point could be better, edit to make it better, don't revert. Further, the types of bipedalism that evolved in octopi and pangolins are not exclusive bipedalism, which is how the five lines of exclusive bipedalism is described in the overview section.
Your points on skunks and octopi are completely wrong. Both pieces of information are still in the article, I did not remove the information, I moved it here and here. Is there any other information that you think I have deleted? I think you will find that in most cases, unless it's completely spurious or vandalism, it's moved and not deleted. Try reading through the entire page, or looking edit-by-edit to see the changes. Further, regarding the octopus, I actually provided better information in the form of a citation to a peer-reviewed journal, reference 6. I thought the information was good and valuable, which is why I kept it.
Assume good faith and look for the information. It's there. Or, go through the history, retrieve the information and paste it back in the page. If you need help I am willing to show you how to retrieve information. I feel I have gone out of my way to explain why I am deleting or changing things, and from you I am getting replies which do not show any evidence of actually reviewing the changes I've made.
Please explain to me how the headings are improper or suggest alternatives. The current headings more descriptive and allow the sections to be separated into exclusive bipedalism and limited bipedalism - that looks more, rather than less systematic. 'Consider not deleting it' doesn't help improve the page and suggests that the version you keep reverting to is worth keeping in exclusion of all changes I, or other editors have made, including basic changes to grammar.
I don't even know what your fifth point is. Find any admin and ask for their opinion or assistance. Look at WP:DR, WP:MOS's talk page, WP:AN, add {{helpme}} to your page, or get adopted.
If you feel the need to edit again, please do not replace the external links without justification! Why do you discount policy and the opinion of two other editors, one of whom is completely independent of you, and why do you keep replacing a link that isn't even active? And why do you not at least review the changes to keep what is worth preserving? Why keep my edits in mind for 'inspiration', why not just keep them and adapt them further to improve the page? WLU 01:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WLU, have good faith and please read what I wrote above, why don't you just make the edits you want from the current version but without the mistakes and deletions that I have previosly pointed out as disagreeing with. Of course I may disagree again with your edits, but hopefully not. I reverted because I want a good article on bipedalism, please don't take it personally. Nicolharper 02:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, I have read what you've written above, and I don't see any merit to it. There are no mistakes or deletions that you have not pointed out that I have not shown to actually be in the current version. You've suggested no real changes, just protection of a page version which has numerous problems I have attempted to address. You're not improving the page, you're removing improvements. My initial discussions assumed good faith, now I'm in a revert war where my statements aren't getting anywhere. WLU 02:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are octopus arms and skunk anal glands forelimbs?Nicolharper 02:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could that have been dealt with using a minor section edit rather than a wholesale revert? WLU 02:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was just one of the problems I listed above. All the problems suggested to me that the most efficient approach was a revert then rework from there, as I said. Some of your changes were useful, for example there is rather much redundancy in the advantages section, however I think the bullet points work best there. Nicolharper 02:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<undent>Here's a hint. What you've done can get you blocked, per the WP:3rr. Discuss changes, don't revert and revert and revert. I've made accomodations to reflect what you wanted on the page. You have not. Budge. Make your changes as sections, not as reverts. Reverts end in obvious acrimony. And blocks. WLU 02:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reverting to the later version. Please let me know if there is any help you need with technical details, citation templates or other mechanical stuff. Otherwise, I look forward to your changes tomorrow. WLU 03:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. WLU 02:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR violation

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bipedalism, again

While blocked, you can still edit your talk page. If you like, I am very willing to look at your suggestions and attempt to edit the bipedalism page to a version that is acceptable to you. The issues you raised in previous discussion appear to include:

Cutting advantageous bipedal behaviour; note that there is now a section for the advantages of bipedalism. I'm re-wording to separate the 'use of forelimbs' from the other sections, good suggestion. The separate section seems like a good addition, but it is somewhat redundant. Possibly having the advantages listed in each section in the overview would be even more redundant.
Exceptional cases lost; The exceptional cases contained animals with missing limbs, Natasha and Oliver, and humans on their hands. Natasha and Oliver are now in limited bipedalism in mammals (limited because there are only one within each species), missing limbs was just a reference to dogs, and is still there in the same section. I didn't keep the handwalking, perhaps it could be re-instated.
Details on the advantages; All of the cases are still there, and the only thing which has really lost details is the improved perception. It's now as a paragraph, which is preferred per the MOS. The list and the current paragraph don't seem wildly different, what details do you think should be added? It may indeed be worth returning to a list if there's no way of integrating them into a paragraph.
Headings are unsystematic; the headings start of by discussing types of bipedalism, then exclusive bipedalism in different types of animals, then mammals, limited bipedalism in mammals and non-mammals, then advantages. They seem to go from general to specific, which makes sense to me. I've moved the mention of monitor lizards from limited mammal to limited non-mammal, making the heading more accurate.
Deletion of contributions; to date the only information I've deleted is the handwalking, which could be added even to the lead.
Keeping external links; this has been discussed and gone to a WP:3O. The 3O reviewed them and found the links to be not useful. I agree, and still see no reason to include them. The next step would be dispute resolution, probably a request for comment. I still think a thorough review of WP:EL would be instructive - there is no need for a magic number of links, or even any links. Links should be kept to a minimum, and reviewed on a case-by-case basis. There is no policy-based reason for 'finding better links'. If you can find better links, add them, but in a page like bipedalism, each link stands on its own, not based on the others. In any page, links stand on their own, and are based on policy rather than on what other pages do.
Advantages; as above, I think I've kept it. We can't include every single instance of bipedalism, it's redundant, though we can show noteworthy examples. The octopus, racoons, vision, learnt bipedalism, they're all there. Octopi limbs and skunk glands are no longer referred to as forelimbs.

Please, I encourage you to make section edits rather than wholesale reverting. I believe I've made the changes you have, using section edits. Please let me know if there is any other changes you think are merited, and I'll try to edit towards a consensus that is acceptable to both. When your block expires or is removed, please edit section by section rather than just reverting, or revert and actually edit to reflect the work that's be done, discussion and work within the framework of policy and practices. WLU 17:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WLU, I might be mistaken, and if so please ignore this message, but it looks like you didn't remove your call for a block after I reverted back to your version of the page. If this is so I am disappointed, it isn't helpful if we are going to work together on this page. Nicolharper 01:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, I didn't withdraw it. Theoretically any 3RR violation should result in a block, irrespecitve of motivation or if I withdraw it. It's designed to discourage edit warring. You'll be unblocked soon, so not to worry. WLU 02:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not impressed that you didn't withdraw it. Also, on the 3RR page it says that if a person reverts back after reverting more than 3 times they should not usually be blocked (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:3RR). Nicolharper 02:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I left my last comment five minutes before going to bed last night. I didn't have time to see your comment, and I don't think I noticed your reversion to the more recent edited version. Further, I can't unblock you, only an admin can, and I'm pretty sure that I would not be allowed to even were I able - seems like a COI and kinda tacky, as if I were trying to bribe you into agreeing with me or something. If you are still blocked, use the unblock template (currently it's commented out, and I'm not sure why). I'll bring it up with User:Jossi to see what they say. From your reading, you indeed had a valid reason to be unblocked.

I may also have a solution to the 'advantages' section that may please us both - how about rather than a bulleted list or paragraph, we use a table? There are multiple advantages to different aspects of bipedalism (freeing forelimbs lets you dig, fight and carry; higher head lets you wade, reach higher objects with the mouth and see further). What if the paragraph were replaced with a table? I'll try drafting something today and let you know when I'm done. WLU 14:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a possible table, a version of which may offer a compromise acceptable to both of us. It's very basic, and is missing critical sources, but it's a start. Help:Table is a resource for what can be done with tables, I've got very limited familiarity with them, but I've managed to successfully put them together before. WP:COLOR lists colours available in both hex and english that could be used for the titles, or for the fonts. Also, I've left a note for Jossi about your block, though you should try the unblock template as well in case they aren't available. From what I've seen, it usually gets a quick response. WLU 17:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to CfD Category:Pseudoskeptic Target Discussion

I noticed that you have edited in related areas within WP, and so thought you might have an interest in this discussion.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 18:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Organismal Biomechanics

Hi, I've noticed you seem to edit a lot of the same pages I do, and a lot of them are within the scope of the wikiproject I'm proposing, Wikiproject - Organismal biomechanics, so I was wondering if you'd be interested in it. A list of the pages I plan to have within the project scope are on my userpage. Mokele (talk) 16:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have previously checked out your proposal and thought it looked like a good idea. I would probably be up for helping out a bit. However, I currently have a heavy workload with my job so I'm afraid I can't do that much, but maybe a bit. What would helping on the project involve beyond the what I do already? All the best Nicolharper (talk) 20:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I went ahead and created it: WikiProject_Organismal_Biomechanics. The only thing really involved is to just keep doing what you're doing for biomech pages - the project just serves as a quick way to see what's in good shape vs what's in dire need of attention. Mokele (talk) 04:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flying and gliding animals

Well I am surprised by the revert made in the flying and gliding animals article given my attempts to improve the readability of article. The edit I feel, was very minor where semantics were left unaltered. I'm happy to leave things as they are, whether it needed improvement is up for contention. Horses for courses I suppose. I am always mindful when I add or alter articles that the information presented can be followed easily and it will not make a reader confused, bamboozled or turn him or her off. I must say I am perplexed why the revert was made as I do not think it was needed. Any feedback on my talk page would be welcomed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Try0yrt (talk • contribs) 01:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 16

Hi. When you recently edited List of mythological places, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hel (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) 10:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Urban wildlife, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Seal (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) 13:28, 20 August 2013 (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) 13:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Nicolharper. 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]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Nicolharper. 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]