User talk:Tarrant on Wiki

January 2009

Please do not add advertising or inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did in The Dreamers (film). Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. —Erik (talk • contrib) 06:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware that linking a film's page to the Imdb page of the producer constituted an inappropriate link. Also, adding a link to the official site of the production company isn't advertising. Yes, I am affiliated with that company, but even if I wasn't, as a fan of "The Dreamers," I would want to know this info.

Tarrant on Wiki (talk) 15:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links at film articles need to be directly related to the topic at hand. For example, a link to the producer's IMDb page would be acceptable at the producer's Wikipedia article because there is direct relevance. The same logic applies to the companies as well... if they have their own Wikipedia articles, then their official sites can be linked there. I don't have a problem with Jeremy Bolt being mentioned in the infobox, but solely mentioning him in the lead section where there are also other producers involved struck me as a little promotional. It may be worth reading Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. My personal rule of thumb is to remain uninvolved with anything on Wikipedia that you may have a personal relation to so you can make contributions that are as unbiased as possible. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To elaborate on your line: I don't have a problem with Jeremy Bolt being mentioned in the infobox, but solely mentioning him in the lead section where there are also other producers involved struck me as a little promotional.

Jeremy Thomas was the lead producer on "The Dreamers." He has been Bernardo Bertolucci's producer for twenty years, and solely developed and financed the project. Of the producers listed, Peter Watson (executive producer) and Hercules Bellville (associated producer) work for Jeremy Thomas at his company Recorded Pictures. Though it sounds impressive, the term "executive producer" usually refers to putting the financing deals together, and this is true in this case. Co-producer can be awarded for varying involvement -- in this case, Hercules Bellville helped develop the script. "Co-producer" refers to the line producer on the crew (physical day-to-day producer on set). If you worked in the film industry, these credits would be obvious. Tarrant on Wiki (talk) 18:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't, but I fixed it. There was a missing </ref> tag at the end of the "Reception" section. As for producers, I understand the prominence of producers compared to executive producers and associated producers. It was just that there was an attempt to mention Bolt's name in an important way, and combined with the addition of company links, it did not seem to be the most objective series of edits. —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Just for the record, it's Jeremy Thomas, not Jeremy Bolt as you keep saying (a completely different kettle of fish). Whoever set up The Dreamers page shouldn't have credited John Bernard in the infobox. Jeremy Thomas solely has "Producer" credit. If he had shared the job with someone, such as John Bernard, he too would be credited as "Producer." Tarrant on Wiki (talk) 17:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blargh, my tongue really got tangled there! :P Sorry, I meant Jeremy Thomas all along. As for The Dreamers, I've reviewed the credits and agree with you that John Bernard should not be under that field. I've removed it. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's great -- thanks! Tarrant on Wiki (talk) 17:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Franklyn for my explanation. The additions were word-for-word from Variety and Rotten Tomatoes, which were copyright violations. In addition, IMDb's trivia page is not a reliable source. Let's discuss it there. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Balibo film restored paragraph

Hi,
You recovered that paragraph but left the vestiges of footnotes in place as [11], [13], [14].

(So that was an incomplete job, basically.)

There have been a bunch of edits to that article. If you can determine what 11/13/14 refer to, possibly but not necessarily the current 11, 13 and 14, then I can do the mechanics of the footnoting.

Cheers, Varlaam (talk) 17:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 15:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for submitting an article at Wikipedia:Articles for Creation. Your submission has been reviewed and has been put on hold pending clarification or improvements from you or other editors. Please take a look and respond if possible. You can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/HanWay Films. If there is no response within twenty-four hours the request may be declined; if this happens feel free to continue to work on the article and resubmit when you believe the concerns have been addressed. Thank you. Chzz ► 19:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Your nomination at Articles for Creation was a success, and HanWay Films was created.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see what needs to be done to bring it to the next level.
Please continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request.
If you would to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping Wikipedia! fetchcomms☛ 22:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it's created but if you have more sources/material to add, keep adding! Great job on this article. fetchcomms☛ 22:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note: I have nominated HanWay Films for DYK which means it may appear on the Main Page for 6 hours in a few days' time, if it is reviewed and everything checks out. This means your article really is a spectacular start, as DYK is for showcasing interesting facts from new articles. fetchcomms☛ 22:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why on earth

did you go through and add spacing to ALL of these places? The proper formatting for a reference following a sentence is to have no spaces. I spent about 2 hours last night going through and fixing the spacing after sentences, and you undid all of it. This is not the proper way that this is supposed to be formatted and I noted that both on the talk page and in the edit summaries and it was reinforced on the article talk page here and noted to be covered in WP:REFPUNCT. I have undone the arbitrary spacing you added in, I'm sorry if this undoes any other edits. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh gosh, sorry -- I thought when you wrote this:

And don't forget to space directly after each reference, don't run the next sentence into the ref. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

It was meant to be spaced that way... I know now. I'll redo my actual edits. As you know, I've written 95% of the page since Haim's death -- any advice welcome. --Tarrant on Wiki (talk) 12:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for HanWay Films

On April 13, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article HanWay Films, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 05:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! fetchcomms☛ 14:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Two The Two Coreys

Hmm. Actually, it's probably okay to have two pages - one that covers the television program and one that covers the two as a team. However, it looks to me like some of that content is technically mixed up. I'd retain the series page and move the content that pertains to the show from the persons page. I'd also lose the duplicate external links - there shouldn't be an offical website page on the persons page, only on the series and clean out what doesn't belong. It's okay to have the persons page, the two are a phenomenon, not as big as, but sort of like Laurel & Hardy, if you follow. If either page were to be excluded, it would be the persons page. There should links in a "See also" section for the individuals' pages and the lead section is actually fairly decent for the intro to the pair of them, but then it just stops. It leaves the reader hanging and should really be fully expanded. I don't see a link on Haim's page to anything regarding the pair of them and the link on Feldman's is sort of buried. I see no good reason to retain Big Wolf on Campus as it wasn't a joint appearance, nor was it even remotely close in time. Or at least that's what I think off the top of my head. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let me look at it again. I haven't added much to either and didn't include Big Wolf on Campus, but it is accepted to have played a role in the conception of The Two Coreys show because they were each on it as themselves in a two-ep arc.

Do you not think combining the two pages is a good idea? With separate and clear sections for show and team. The show clearly fed off their rep as the team, and so could naturally flow.

--Tarrant on Wiki (talk) 12:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haim's filmography

The only thing I saw that was done to the filmography page was the replacement of the code mark-up with a template for the filmography table head. That was done on consensus after a very long drawn-out discussion at WT:ACTOR. I didn't see any problems with what was done. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More on Corey

Thanks for the thanks. :) You're quite right, edits for the sake of editing is part and parcel of this particular internet world. You're right, nicknames don't go under aliases, that is for alternate names that he may have worked under (like if he were Corey Ian Haim in some credits). I'm not sure that including little nicknames would be very encyclopedic. I'd support them not being added. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. And I really appreciate your fair efforts in protecting the page, especially as there is a 112 page fake biography that has been circulating for some time through Haim's Imdb message board, containing a bunch of very extreme drug anecdotes lifted directly from anti-drug sites! Thankfully a Toronto woman who had known Haim a little got suspicious and typed some phrases into Google, and was led to the sources. It was totally fabricated. Why anyone would do that, I don't know, but there are some odd people on the net (present company excepted). --Tarrant on Wiki (talk) 14:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it's interesting, but it's posted on a blog. Those are considered self-published sources and they just aren't acceptable. For all we know, the writer made it up. See also Wikipedia:BLP#Reliable sources. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:F&J Franklyn1Sheet Artwork.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:F&J Franklyn1Sheet Artwork.jpg. 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 06:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Corey Haim at a fan convention.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Corey Haim at a fan convention.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Skolimowski

Thx for your photos of director Skolimowski. Przykuta (talk) 17:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Corey Haim at a fan convention.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Corey Haim at a fan convention.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 23:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Corey Haim, with cigarette.jpeg

Thanks for uploading File:Corey Haim, with cigarette.jpeg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 17:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Corey Haim, with cigarette.jpeg

Thanks for uploading File:Corey Haim, with cigarette.jpeg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr (talk) 11:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cinema of Japan, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Taboo (film) and 3D (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) 11:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Recorded Picture Company, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jeffrey Wright (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) 11:19, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Black Death (2010 film) concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Black Death (2010 film), a page you created has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13. Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 12:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your article submission Black Death (2010 film)

Hello Tarrant on Wiki. It has been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled Black Death (2010 film).

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note, however, that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Black Death (2010 film)}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 14:44, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

High Rise

In regards to your edits on High Rise, there is no WP:OR and all articles must be written in neutral WP:POV. I'll go over each edit.

You're edits in bold

"by artist Jay Shaw". No, we don't credit the artist of a film poster
Adding editing = Ben Wheatley, Amy Jump not sourced
Adding Recorded Picture Company, Film4 (financier), British Film Institute (financier), Studio Canal (UK), The Jokers (France) to studio and distributors. No, financiers are not added. Just the studio and distributor, otherwise there would be a financier parameter.
Adding Leila Mimmack as Laura, Louis Suc as Toby, Bill Patterson as Mercer unsourced.
Adding Academy Award-winning producer Jeremy Thomas has held not neutral WP:POV
Adding http://www.recordedpicture.com and http://mrandmrswheatley.blogspot.co.uk/, improper use of films external links.

I would also be careful when saying that you are "an executive working on this film" as it is a Conflict of interest.LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:05, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 2014

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at High Rise (film). Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

High Rise

No offense, but continuously saying you're an exec for the film and to trust you you do this for a living means nothing here. It only mean something if it's back by reliable sourcing which I appreciate you finally doing. LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:10, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Tarrant on Wiki. You have new messages at Lady Lotus's talk page.
Message added 12:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Tarrant on Wiki. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article High-Rise (film), you may have a conflict of interest.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 17:04, 8 August 2014 (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) 14:00, 24 November 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) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Tarrant on Wiki. 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, Tarrant on Wiki. 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]