User talk:Sarastro1/Archive 12
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
Congratulations!
Congratulations on the D'Oliveira affair being today's Featured Article. JH (talk page) 09:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
You know the drill. I had to squeeze the summary down to around 1200 characters; was there anything I left out you'd like to see put back in? I'd appreciate it if you could check the article one more time before its day on the Main Page. - Dank (push to talk) 00:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Dank: Sadly, Sarastro1 hasn't been active on Wikipedia for about five months now. I'll try and have a look over this in his absence though. Harrias talk 07:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- Ah I didn't know that ... thx much Harrias. - Dank (push to talk) 13:31, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Dank:, @Harrias:: I'm around a little bit, and have had look now. Cheers! Sarastro1 (talk) 21:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- I didn't want to say anything in case I scared you back off again! Harrias talk 21:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- Oh no, it's HIM!!! Sarastro1 (talk) 21:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- Tweaks look good. - Dank (push to talk) 21:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- Oh no, it's HIM!!! Sarastro1 (talk) 21:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- I didn't want to say anything in case I scared you back off again! Harrias talk 21:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Dank:, @Harrias:: I'm around a little bit, and have had look now. Cheers! Sarastro1 (talk) 21:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- Ah I didn't know that ... thx much Harrias. - Dank (push to talk) 13:31, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- Now the article looks good, thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:14, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello from the team at Featured article review!
We are preparing to take a closer look at Featured articles promoted in 2004–2010 that may need a review. We started with a script-compiled list of older FAs that have not had a recent formal review. The next step is to prune the list by removing articles that are still actively maintained, up-to-date, and believed to meet current standards. We know that many of you personally maintain articles that you nominated, so we'd appreciate your help in winnowing the list where appropriate.
Please take a look at the sandbox list, check over the FAs listed by your name, and indicate on the sandbox talk page your assessment of their current status. Likewise, if you have taken on the maintenance of any listed FAs that were originally nominated by a departed editor, please indicate their status. BLPs should be given especially careful consideration.
Thanks for your help! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Crawford
It's good to have you back! I was tempted to buy the book, but I have so many books that I haven't found the time to read (and DVDs that I haven't found the time to watch) that so far I've resisted that temptation. I couldn't stop myself from buying Stephen Chalke's new history of the County Championship, though. JH (talk page) 09:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
The more I learn about Crawford, the more he seems like a spoilt brat who would throw his toys out of the pram if he didn't get his own way. It's interesting that, after every tour that he went on, there seem to have been rumours - presumably as a results of off-the-cuff remarks that he made - that he might settle in the country in question. JH (talk page) 08:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- Regarding the 1909 Australians match, I think there were two factors which made his idea that he could influence selection unrealistic. One was that he was a stand-in captain rather than the club captain. The other - even more significant - was that the players in question had been dropped for disciplinary rather than cricket reasons. Had the committee acceded to his demand they would have looked weak and would have feared that they might encourage further ill-discipline. (How times have changed. Crawford's concern that Surrey fielding a weakened team would reflect badly on him as captain seems strange nowadays, when counties invariable field XIs against the touring side that are little better than a second team.) JH (talk page) 19:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Welcome
Hello Sarastro, just saying welcome back from hibernation. If you do indeed keep YM's extensive library of cricketing contributions in order, that would be a fine thing. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Ranji
Don't know if you've noticed, but Ranjitsinhji has had a drive-by nom for GA. I know you did a bit of work on his article before, so wondered if you thought it was in a suitable state? Harrias talk 12:20, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Civility Barnstar |
| Couldn't really stop myself from wishing you for this edit —Vensatry (ping) 18:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC) |
Hi, I'm planning to take the article to FAC. It would be so kind of you if you could give your feedback and inputs here. Thanks, —Vensatry (ping) 17:49, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
A cricket favor
Hi Sarastro,
Would you take a look at the TFA blurb for Ian Craig for me? I'm specifically looking for confirmation that his records stated in the blurb (1) agree with those stated in the article, and (2) all still stand. I have done some work on the article and believe it is in fine shape, but I am a bit hampered by my inability to read cricketspeak. Thank you! Maralia (talk) 04:41, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- Seconding the request. I scheduled it as Maralia and you had previously gone over the article and found it to be more or less acceptable, but any extra bit of caution helps. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:45, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Maralia and Crisco 1492: I've had a look and rejigged it quite a bit. Feel free to tweak anything, but I think it's a better cricket balance now. I'm also just having a look at the article today and tomorrow as I think there are a few little points that need tidying up before TFA day. Nothing major though; again, feel free to check that I'm not making a mess. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- They are both improved—thank you! Crisco 1492, I see that the infobox image is not long for this world. Could it perhaps be retained with a FUR, or is a single non-free image of a deceased person verboten these days? Maralia (talk) 01:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, a FUR would work. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hey @Crisco 1492: check my work at File:Ian Craig.JPG? Maralia (talk) 05:22, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, a FUR would work. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- They are both improved—thank you! Crisco 1492, I see that the infobox image is not long for this world. Could it perhaps be retained with a FUR, or is a single non-free image of a deceased person verboten these days? Maralia (talk) 01:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Maralia and Crisco 1492: I've had a look and rejigged it quite a bit. Feel free to tweak anything, but I think it's a better cricket balance now. I'm also just having a look at the article today and tomorrow as I think there are a few little points that need tidying up before TFA day. Nothing major though; again, feel free to check that I'm not making a mess. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
A summary of a Featured Article you nominated at WP:FAC will appear on the Main Page soon. It mostly follows the lead section; how does it look? Is "team" acceptable for "side"? Do you ever get people complaining that "scoring 1,000 runs in a season ten times and taking 100 wickets" needs an "or more" somewhere? For "his attacking batting", could I say "his attacking batting style" or "his aggressive batting"? - Dank (push to talk) 01:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Dank: On the 1,000 runs/100 wickets thing, it's just one of those things: like we say how many times a batsman scores a hundred or a fifty, not more than a hundred. No complaints yet, but there's always a first! Either of those expressions work for attacking batting. I'll have a look at the blurb myself as well, and give the article a polish before the 17th. Sarastro1 (talk) 13:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Great, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 13:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Dank: Finally got around to it! I've reworded a bit and will look at the whole article over the next couple of days. Please check I've not made it worse!! Sarastro1 (talk) 21:19, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delinked one word; otherwise it looks great. - Dank (push to talk) 22:15, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Dank: Finally got around to it! I've reworded a bit and will look at the whole article over the next couple of days. Please check I've not made it worse!! Sarastro1 (talk) 21:19, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
- Great, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 13:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Congratulations! JH (talk page) 08:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Precious again! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:09, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
MacGregor
Good evening Sarastro, how's it going? I'm here soliciting, I'm afraid; I have the "King of Con-men", Gregor MacGregor, up at peer review here. If you can find the time to have a look I would appreciate any thoughts you might have. Cheers and I hope you're well. — Cliftonian (talk) 21:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker)I thought you meant the real Gregor MacGregor for a moment! Harrias talk 22:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- That Gregor MacGregor seems like a right upstanding sort of gent, though—exactly what the Cazique of Poyais would have liked to be, I imagine. — Cliftonian (talk) 22:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Sarastro, I'll get to this one tonight. - Dank (push to talk) 01:44, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
- I'm assuming he played professionally for Yorkshire County Cricket Club between 1920 and 1935 ... please correct that if it's wrong. Otherwise I think we're good to go. - Dank (push to talk) 04:28, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Precious again, your George Macaulay who "never fitted with the establishment" and "had a biting wit"!
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:59, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Congratulations! JH (talk page) 09:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
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) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Merry Christmas!
| A very happy Christmas and New Year to you! | 
|
|
|
|
Season's Greetings
To You and Yours!
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:55, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Merry Christmas!
| Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! |  |
|
|
A very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you and all your loved ones, and a joyous and prosperous 2016.
|
I should get to this one today. Feel free to tidy up, as usual. - Dank (push to talk) 20:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Dank: I've had a look, and it seems fine to me. We'll make a cricketer of you yet! Sarastro1 (talk) 18:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Precious again, your "interesting chap who fitted rather well into a team of social misfits who dominated English cricket in the early 1920s"
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Congratulations! JH (talk page) 09:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
... today's Len Hutton, thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- And once more, congratulations! JH (talk page) 07:31, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
... today's Learie Constantine, a Trinidadian cricketer, barrister, politician and a life-long opponent of racial discrimination! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- And yet again, congratulations! JH (talk page) 08:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Back?
I think I may have to revive this long-pending task in case you're back. Welcome back! —Vensatry (Talk) 08:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Anbe Sivam PR
Hello, Sarastro1. I've listed the article for PR here as I wish to take it to FA. Feel free to leave comments. Thanks. 
— Ssven2 Speak 2 me 04:52, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Can you conduct an informal peer review for Anbe Sivam before I take it to FAC. Do let me know by pinging me. Thanks. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 00:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks and request
Thank you so much for such a thorough review of the Zeta-Jones article, and I would be very grateful if you could take a look at the Jessica Chastain article that I have listed for peer review. Cheers! Krimuk|90 (talk) 03:13, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Jack Bloody Crawford
I haven't read the new book, though I've been very tempted to buy it. Only my reading backlog has held me back. I'd be surprised if it was just a rehash; Keith Booth has written several other highly-regarded biographies of past Surrey greats, and a few years ago that on George Lohmann was the Cricket Society's Book of the Year. JH (talk page) 07:46, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. I hadn't realised that the Hart biography was available online. JH (talk page) 08:44, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Favor
Hey Sarastro. I've got a GA-related favor to ask (no worries, it's not a baseball question). The nomination at Talk:William Walker (Australian cricketer)/GA1 has essentially stalled at this point due to concerns about the length of the article; there's nothing wrong with the information of the article as is, but the length has given both Harrias (who seems to be on break) and myself some concerns. Wouldyou be able to chime in on whether or not the length as is works? For a man noted as one of the finest cricketers of his time to be half the size of the no-name ballplayers I tend to nominate doesn't seem right, but then again it is a 19th-century cricket history piece so maybe I'm off base. Wizardman 15:16, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Title TK
Hi Sarastro1. How are you? You kindly offered to look at Title TK some more outside of FAC. Since then, I've done quite a bit of polishing of the text, and looked for other instances of the issues you mentioned. The one section I haven't really touched is the Reception part, because during the FAC you didn't respond to my reply to your concerns about it [[1]] (which is fine—I know you felt there would be too much to comment on within the time period of the FAC). I'd like to get more clarification from you before tackling any changes to this section. During the FAC I also didn't get any indication whether you felt I was on the right track for the Songs section that you suggested I add.
I would like to open up another peer review as a forum for your (and any other editors') feedback. Would that suit you as a good way to proceed with giving me further suggestions on the article? Thank you, Moisejp (talk) 05:58, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for your reply. I'll open a peer review sometime in the next week and alert you, and you can join in whenever you have time. I'm not in any big rush. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 14:40, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Sarastro1. I have now opened a peer review Wikipedia:Peer_review/Title_TK/archive2. I understand that you are quite busy, so whenever you have time is much appreciated. Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 04:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Your help requested
Hello Sarastro1, I have nominated Port Phillip v Van Diemen's Land, 1851 as an FA candidate. Brianboulton had suggested that if you might be free, I request your assistance for improving the article. I wanted to enquire whether you would be able to help me on this? Thanks and best. Xender Lourdes (talk) 15:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
PR request
Hi Sarastro, hope you are doing well. You may or may not remember but a few years ago I'd asked you to perform a PR on the Arsène Wenger page, which you kindly did. The article failed at FAC, and I've only recently started cleaning it up. It's more comprehensive than before, and I've taken on board the comments left by other reviewers. I was wondering if you could leave some feedback here whenever you get the time; I hope to get it featured before his 20th anniversary in October. Lemonade51 (talk) 02:35, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
1947 English cricket season
Hi, you deleted some non-free images recently that had just been inserted by someone who's banned from the site. I've picked the article out of the GA review queue and obviously I'm concerned that someone had compromised it. Are you entirely happy with all the other images he inserted that are still there? Thanks. Boca Jóvenes (talk) 19:07, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hi again. Thank you for your help on this and at the GAR page. I'm afraid I had no choice but to fail it. Sub-standard intro and loads of citations needed. Really interesting article, though, with a heap of info. Well, back to the footy for me. Thanks again. Boca Jóvenes (talk) 20:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Comment at Emma Stone
I saw your note at the Emma Stone FAC about having concerns about the way reviews were used that went beyond that particular article; would you mind sharing whatever you had in mind? I ask because I recently got fed up enough with reception sections to write an essay about how to improve them, and I'd be interested in hearing other thoughts. I think these sections are hard to write, and hard to fix once written badly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Doc's just started up this contest about topics and articles covering Classical Hollywood cinema. Do express if you are interested or not by signing up under the "Editors Interested" section. Thanks. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 06:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Jack Crawford again
The latest edition of the Surrey CCC Supporters' Association newsletter has a review of Keith Booth's book. Unsurprisingly, it's very favourable. One part of the review caught my eye: But in Keith and Jennifer Booth's excellent book Crawford comes across not, as one might expect, as someone who was regularly running away from his past (although there were personal relationships that ended with him doing so), but more as someone who believed the grass was greener on the other side, For instance, why, when Surrey told him he would never play for the club again, did Jack favour South Australia rather than serve a two-year qualification period and turn out for another county? It was not because he needed the money. It turns out that, even before his spat with officialdom, Crawford was already planning to move down under. JH (talk page) 07:48, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- "Do you ever regret starting an article??" :) That hasn't happened to me so far, but I can well understand how it could. JH (talk page) 15:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments at the Stone FAC. Would you be willing to post some comments at the PR for Swift's article? I would really appreciate the help. FrB.TG (talk) 08:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
FAC voluntary mentoring scheme
During a recent lengthy discussion on the WP:FAC talkpage, several ideas were put forward as to how this procedure could be improved, particularly in making it more user-friendly towards first-time nominees. The promotion rate for first-timers at FAC is depressingly low – around 16 percent – which is a cause for concern. To help remedy this, Mike Christie and I, with the co-operation of the FAC coordinators, have devised a voluntary mentoring scheme, in which newcomers will guided by more experienced editors through the stages of preparation and submission of their articles. The general format of the scheme is explained in more detail on Wikipedia: Mentoring for FAC, which also includes a list of editors who have indicated that they are prepared to act as mentors.
Would you be prepared to take on this role occasionally? If so, please add your name to the list. By doing so you incur no obligation; it will be entirely for you to decide how often and on which articles you want to act in this capacity. We anticipate that the scheme will have a trial run for a few months before we appraise its effectiveness. Your participation will be most welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 21:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Many thanks for signing up. The response from would-be mentors has been most encouraging. Schemes like this are often slow to take off, and it may be a while before we know if it's working. But with this level of support, including that of many of our most experienced FA editors, I think it has every chance. Brianboulton (talk) 17:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
FA
Curious (via the FA mentoring page, and you being one of the only sports editors) what you think about William A. Spinks? Absent discovery of a trove of additional old newspaper sources, what's available seems to be exhausted. I could probably find a source or two on his oil-company stuff, but I never did see much on it, just something like "Present at the 19xx meeting of the Foo Bar Baz Oil Company board meeting were W. A. Spinks, ...". And he's not notable for that, but for the billiards stuff, and the avocado, which in its day was a leading cultivar before Hass. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:06, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- @SMcCandlish: I've had a quick look, and it seems in decent shape. If you are thinking about FA, there are a few places where I'd say the prose needs tightening, and I think there are places where the sourcing would need a little work to reach FA standard; not the sources as such, rather how they are used to support statements. The other thing I notice (which isn't necessarily a problem if nothing is available) is that most of the sources are newspapers. Something from a written history of billiards which mentions him would be a good thing. My biggest worry is that we have a few places in the references where we are passing judgement in wikipedia's voice ("This questionable article", "amusingly listing"). It would need working on before taking to FAC, but could well be worth a tilt. I can give specifics, but it might be a day or two; my time on here at the moment tends to come in bursts of a week or so before real life swamps me again! Let me know if you want my detailed ramblings, and I'll take this to the talk page. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:30, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. That's enough to go on. I do actually need to pare down the amount of annotation in the citations anyway; much of the "this source contains X, Y and Z facts" stuff could be put into HTML notes, and some of it just eliminated by citation placement. I haven't much worked on the article (even GA only needed tweaks) for years. I remembered that a few FAs are quite short, but wasn't sure if that was from "the olden times" or still something that was possible (versus having to be developed to the level of the Mark Twain article or whatever). I did write to the county library of the area where Spinks lived in later years to see if they had any local history items on him, and they did not. Billiards history sources: There's not much to go on beyond Shamos 1999 and Stein & Rubino 2008; anything else will probably just be citing them. Most non-US sources on the topic also (like those two) go back to "Jack Carr's Twisting Powder" a century or so earlier (which turned out to just be plaster). By the time modern, composite billiard chalk made its way to Europe after the Spinks and Hoskins formulation, the Europeans didn't know anything of its origins, and international patent law most mostly theoretical in this era, so the Eur. manufacturers (and later historical works) didn't know or care who Spinks was. There was near-zero transcontinental billiards competition, either, aside from demo games, and an instance of an American balkline champion trouncing the UK champion of English billiards by using balkline-style nurse shots that were technically legal but unknown in EB, and viewed as unsportsmanlike (and shortly explicitly banned in EB), but most if not all of that stuff would be off-topic in the Spinks piece. Anyway, my main concern about it was the (at this point necessary) use of some primary governmental sources such as passport and census materials. I appears that literally zero publications ever asked Spinks when he was born, where his house was, what his wife's name was, etc., etc., and the pic of him with Clara is a nice human-interest touch, I think. People are always complaining that our articles are "dry and dull". — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 16:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
I've adopted (though not to a great extent) your earlier suggestions to the article. I'd be pleased if you could offer a full review this time. Thanks, —Vensatry (talk) 09:42, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
| |
| cricketers | |
|---|---|
| ... you were recipient no. 257 of Precious, a prize of QAI! |
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
FAC
Hello, I'm ATS. Ike Altgens is a Featured article candidate. I hope you have a few moments to check this article against the criteria so I may address any concerns and see this nomination through. My thanks in advance. —ATS 🖖 talk 21:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
|
The Reviewer Barnstar | |
| For your inestimable assistance in promoting this article to featured status, with my thanks! —ATS 🖖 talk 21:53, 26 November 2016 (UTC) |
Hi Sarastro, this one has been open a very long time so, if you have time, it would be great to get your input to see whether it's worth keeping open or not. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
About a Feature article candidate
Hello Sarastro1. I just nominated this article:Game of Thrones(See: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Game of Thrones/archive1). And I would truly apreciate if you have time, could you have a look and maybe give some comments. Thanks. - AffeL (talk) 22:36, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Reference errors on 6 November
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
- On the Keith Miller with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, Sarastro1. 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)