Welcome!

Hello, Fotoriety, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

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 on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! De728631 (talk) 00:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Arrinera Automotive, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Arrinera Automotive and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Arrinera Automotive during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Illia Connell (talk) 03:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, instead of reverting Im gonna put a vague tag, as the quote you mention is at least that, vague and generalistic. Also a citation needed tag, as with that source we cannot state that the South Yemen Movement is supported by Iran. --HCPUNXKID (talk) 13:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, lets be serious with this issue. The statement is clearly vague, as you recognize that it can only be applied to "some factions". OK, so wich factions? 'Cause that's not specific, but rather generalistic. If you cannot answer that question I cannot remove the tag, as it is logic.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 09:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that if the vague tag is added, a citation needed tag should be added to encourage users to find a more clear content source. I hope you agree with that. Regards,--HCPUNXKID (talk) 15:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you can remove the citation needed tag wich is next to the vague tag, but of course not the top of the page one, as there are other citation needed in the rest of the article.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 11:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The matter of the British agents is being directly investigated and MI5 is obliged to hand over docs. The matter of being badly treated in a gaol in Kenya is certainly relevant to his relationship with Kenyan police, but seemingly has little bearing on cold-blooded murder of someone unrelated to the incident. If a relevant connection between the events is found, then it needs to go in.

While there may be an opinion that he was "changed" by that event, it is clear that he was already radicalised. A "roughing up" by the police was to be expected, given the course he had set himself upon, Particularly since he was one of the older members of a group that included young teens. What were those young kids going to become once they had joined the extremists in Nigeria? Bomb-carriers? Arm-loppers? Serial rapists? That is what they are trained to do.

The significant ting here is that British officials rescued the would-be Islamist, and set him free! And then he whinges to his friends because that people that rescued him keep an eye on him and pressure to to join them! Gratitude? Amandajm (talk) 03:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am reverting the edit especially after reading your comment hear because it is evident you are not being neutral in any sense. Wikipedia is not a forum to whinge about extremists. What his personality was doesn't concern me in the case of building this article. Why do we add that he was hounded by agents according to his friend, and then we reject outright what his friend has said about torture? If we reject one, then we must reject both if it comes from the same source. And you say torture had no relevance to his atrocity; how do you know that? It could have pushed his hatred for security services over the edge - as has been suggested. Anyway, if torture had no relevance to his crime then in what way does agents trying to recruit him have relevance to his crime?Fotoriety (talk) 03:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amandjam, the fact that you italicized "rescued" shows that it is a tad unusual. We may have differing opinions on why they were so helpful, but I wouldn't like to speculate further! -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 03:56, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The Kenyan episode is relevant insofar as it establishes his "credentials" as a "terror suspect". So, his arrest and deportation are of interest to readers as it is to the intelligence services. But I fail to see how any treatment he received at the hands of Kenyan authorities, before the Brits extracted him, is any relevance. I sincerely hope you are not attempting to imply, through the matter's inclusion, that he has been or will be abused by British authorities like he was allegedly at the hands of the Kenyans. What's more, MA can rant and soapbox as much as he may want about this, but it isn't our job to relay that. Don't forget he put himself at the crime scene, had himself filmed making a rant, and was shot with the murder weapon in his hand. It's about as much as can be substantiated. He's not so much a terrorist as a propaganda mouthpiece for his cause. Of course, he and his family will now be putting up all sorts of smokescreens and excuses as to why he is like what he is like, and why he did what he did. Neither he nor by extension his family are reliable witnesses. In toto, that's why I say the paragraph you insist on inserting is a coatrack. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 03:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No i disagree that it is coatrack. & in no way does it imply that British services are going to mistreat him in his detention. You mentioned that the Kenya episode was included as supporting & exposing his terrorist credentials and i totally agree. But torture can also add to those credentials. Nobody is saying his friend or family are being 100% truthful in their claims of torture. However, the edit doesn't mention it with words of certainty - as words like claim and alleged prove. Like i previously said: you can't include his claims of agents approaching him but exclude the torture. Why? Because both are similarly unproven claims from friend/family and both would fall into the category of irrelevance to the crime by your reasoning. The way i see it, such claims can & should be included because they have relevance as preludes & detail to his atrocity - as long as they are stated as such (i.e. claims, allegations).Fotoriety (talk) 04:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not key detail as it's already mentioned many times over that he was being watched by the intelligence agencies. But insofar as the allegations about his being approached by MI5 reported in the article can be justified, they are cursory, and relate to purely stuff that allegedly happened only domestically. The other claims you seek to reinstate are well outside UK jurisdiction, so the basis for inclusion is flimsy at best. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 04:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • He also went seeking to engage in terrorism outside UK jurisdiction: so is that also flimsy & shouldn't be instated? These are all preludes to his attack at home. I think it's relevant to include that somebody has gone overseas for terrorism, was caught & possibly tortured - all in the one paragraph. Nobody is asking that we write a thousand words about his conditions in Kenyan detention. But i think torture is definitely relevant & notable enough to be mentioned in this case.Fotoriety (talk) 05:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • It seems that all those remain allegations, because the signs are he was released not because charges were laid and dropped, but because he couldn't be charged with anything in any territory. It only became a domestic matter when consular assistance was invoked. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 05:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, i fully understand that. But that alone doesn't negate it's inclusion.Fotoriety (talk) 06:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is consensus that caste should not be stated for living people unless the person has self-identified. Although it is not a perfect exposition, you may wish to read User:Sitush/Common#Castelists as it does set out some of the salient points. Furthermore, in many cases, caste is not even relevant to what people do or, at least, not to those who are sufficiently notable as to have articles on Wikipedia. - Sitush (talk) 10:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, can we at least add that she was born into the Brahmin caste? Even if (assuming) she no longer identifies with this caste, isn't it agreeable to add her birth into it? Correct me if i am wrong, but isn't the caste system primarily (if not exclusively) inherited? So wouldn't this warrant this addition to the article, just as hypothetically someone who is born Italian who then disassociates himself from such an identity would still be mentioned as being born of Italian heritage in the article?Fotoriety (talk) 10:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. An example of just this discussion has recently taken place at Talk:Narendra Modi. It creates an inference, if only because of the inheritance issue that you menion. - Sitush (talk) 11:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it mention this? Could you please be more specific because the word caste is only ever used 3 times in that talk pg.Fotoriety (talk) 11:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who said that news agencies are inferring that she is Brahmin? Actually you are inferring that they are inferring. I don't think numerous sources would state she is Brahmin for no reason; it simply wouldn't make sense. Could you give me a reason they would do such a thing? Whether she identifies as such nowadays doesn't take from the fact that she must have (minimum) been born into this caste.Fotoriety (talk) 02:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page archives, over the last couple of months. I'm not digging around for it: I've got a lot of experience of dealing with caste-related subjects and mentioning the caste of family in order to circumvent WP:BLP is snide, while mentioning the caste of family without that intention is just plain irrelevant. Indeed, caste usually is irrelevant to a person's achievements (or, rather, it is usually so people featured in Wikipedia). You clearly do not understand the concept of caste because, like it or not, people are not "born into it" in the context of Wikipedia and that you think they are rather gives away your intentions in including the information. It is a social construct, not fixed in stone; just as religious belief in BLPs requires self-identification, so too does caste. - Sitush (talk) 06:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited June 2013 Quetta attacks, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hazara (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) 11:28, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jacques Vergès, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Etruscan (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) 11:25, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Jill Kelley. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2014 Bentiu massacre, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nuer (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) 08:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - just FYI, an article you recently worked on has been nominated for the 'recent deaths' section of the Main Page:

Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#.5BRD.5D_Win_Tin_.28Burmese_freedom_campaigner_.2F_political_prisoner.29

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 15:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

if it gets expanded enough, we could nominate it for DYK. Within 7 days thoughLihaas (talk) 10:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.Fotoriety (talk) 01:06, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ghassan Alian, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page IDF. 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) 08:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Operation Barkhane at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yakikaki (talk) 16:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fotoriety, final call on this nomination. If you're still unable to address the issues, we'll unfortunately have to close it. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Ghassan Alian at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fotoriety, final call on this nomination, too. If you're still unable to expand the article—it remains too short for DYK—we'll unfortunately have to close it in the next couple of days. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Syrian Civil War barrel bomb attacks, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rastan. 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) 09:10, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On 7 September 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ghassan Alian, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Ghassan Alian is the first non-Jewish commander of the Israel Defense Forces' Golani Brigade? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ghassan Alian. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fotoriety, your article was nominated for the Did You Know? section of Wikipedia's main page by AndrewRT, but reviews of the nomination have uncovered some issues with the article and the proposed hook. AndrewRT hasn't been around much lately. I have pinged him, but in case he doesn't respond, would you be interested in pursuing the nomination, and have time to do so? Please let me know, or you can post there. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for notifying me BlueMoonset. But i really can't give the article the effort it deserves - especially since the additions of later editors, which seem to be the issues being discussed on its nomination page. But i appreciate your thought.Fotoriety (talk) 05:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the quick response, Fotoriety. I'll wait to see what AndrewRT does, then; if there isn't a response, then I'll close the nomination, but in any event won't disturb you further. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:20, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again.Fotoriety (talk) 06:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am sure it is a common complaint, but it has nothing to do with barrel bombs and belongs in the article about the conflict. --SVTCobra (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ SVTCobra: Read the info you removed and you will see it has everything to do with barrel bombs. They are requesting these weapons to destroy the tools used to launch the bombs. I think it has been mentioned so often that it is relevant to this specific article.Fotoriety (talk) 23:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, it is not my own opinion and you are incorrect when implying your edit is based upon wiki examples or policy. 95 percent of battle articles state only the initial troops strength of the battle, not the strength at the end after casualties, desertions and captures. Second, you conducted four reverts in a matter of hours. Wikipedia has the 3RR (3 revert) policy per which if you revert more than three times in less than 24 hours you can be banned. You reverted Parsa1993 two times and me twice. I was obliged to warn you after the third revert to refrain from any further edit warring, but before I could do that you made the fourth revert. So now, I would ask you to cancel your last revert. Otherwise, I will have to report you to an administrator for violation of Wikipedia policy. I await your response. EkoGraf (talk) 13:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have added well cited info and your argument that most articles don't follow my example misses the real points: 1. That there are still other articles that follow my example, hence, my edit it not illegal. If it isn't illegal then i don't see what gives you the legitimacy to force your own position upon my edit. 2. You say "casualties, desertions and captures," but it is clear that this isn't the case here. Rather what we have is an ISIS retreat of the bulk force and a nominal force left behind. So this is the actual force doing the fighting, not the thousands that are mentioned in the infobox. The reality has every right to be represented in the infobox, just as the Iraqi-Iranian force elaborates that only a certain amount were engaged in the fight in the infobox. We can't resort to being detailed about one side and being general about another. So i don't see that you have any right to threaten me with the 3RR policy. Rather you should stop reverting my edits and allow the same standards of elaboration to apply to both sides. If you wish to report me anyway then be my guest because i believe i have a strong enough case to defend my actions.Fotoriety (talk) 13:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid if you are engaging in OR (original research) by making conjectures about a nominal force being left behind whilst the bulk of ISIL forces being withdrawn (especially as there are sources mentioning reinforcements and not withdrawals). There are no citations which back you theory and the consensus is that you should stop vandalising the infobox by turning it into a live-feed. The 60 to 70 remaining militants is already mentioned in the text of the article. I thank you for your contributions despite this.Parsa1993 (talk) 14:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not threatening you, I am merly stating policy. And when the issue of breaking 3RR is brought up the administrators actually don't care if you are right or wrong, so making a case doesn't really make a difference. They only care if you made more than three reverts, which you did, and this causes an automatic block. Right or wrong regardless. PS If ISIS really retreated the bulk of their troops as you say I have not seen you provide a source that confirms this as well as a source that confirms your assertion that only a small number engaged the Iraqi military. This would than make your edit OR as Parsa1993 has said. EkoGraf (talk) 14:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unbelievable! I really do not want to request a block against you but you will not stop vandalising the article. The "double standard" claim as regards to the 9,000 is not relevant as those aren't an update of numbers but simply the number of men engaged in actual fighting. You must have the intellectual capacity to grasp such simple notions, surely!?Parsa1993 (talk) 00:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So please don't insult my intelligence. the cite for the iraqi forces says 9,000 are expected to be engaged. As you know this sort of language is not established fact. If it had said that 9,000 are engaged then that would be different. The ISIS cite says reinforcements were brought in well into the battle. As you have instructed me, the infobox is not a live update for what forces are introduced or removed during a battle.Fotoriety (talk) 01:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand the difference between live update & general information? The article says: "ISIS has sent reinforcements to Tikrit from other parts of its self-proclaimed caliphate further north, where it came under attack on Monday from Kurdish forces around the oil-rich-city of Kirkuk." So I think you were confused because the second part of the sentence talks about the Kurdish offensive in the same location as mentioned in the first part of the sentence. It DOES NOT state that the reinforcements were sent on Monday which is a time reference given for the Kurdish offensive against ISIL in the north! So please don't insult your own intelligence.Parsa1993 (talk) 11:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is your own OR. The article is clearly several days well into the battle, so it is not talking of reinforcements sent from the beginning. And so it is a live-update of an event during the battle. You can't expect to apply your standard of removing live-updates when it applies to someone other than yourself, but to remove any restrictions upon your own edits. This article doesn't belong to you yet you are behaving as though it is your precious child. Also, one must mention the iraqi claim of ISIS forces, just as many other battles mention the numbers as according to specific sides of a battle.Fotoriety (talk) 11:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How stupid do you think i am? you removed the source that clearly stated the iraqi military claim of 13,000 with a source that mentioned 13,000 without mentioning who made that claim. I should report your shifty behaviour, which you are engaging in all because you seem incapable of accepting any version other than you own way of doing things. Please cease such behaviour, you don't own this article.Fotoriety (talk) 11:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Their mustn't be any reference to reinforcements in the infobox (as per previous discussions) since this would be a live update. These can be included in the main body, otherwise, what we will have is that if in 2 days time we have even more varied reinforcements then this will again have to be added in the infobox...and so on. Where will it end?Fotoriety (talk) 13:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - Remedial Reading Assistant here to help you! In this edit [1], you added the claim 'According to Sanjay Gupta, barrel bombs strikes can produce the seismological equivalent of a 7.6 magnitude earthquake.' Your provide this source, [2]. The source states 'When one strikes, it can produce the seismological equivalent of a 7.6 magnitude earthquake, the White Helmets' James LeMesurier told CNN's Chief Medical Correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta.' According to the source, the '7.6 magnitude earthquake' claim is from James LeMesurier. He told this to Sanjay Gupta. This is not according to Sanjay Gupta. This is according to James LeMesurier. - Remedial Reading Assistant (talk) 04:45, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this was not how the source was originally worded. I corrected the error. --Fotoriety (talk) 08:50, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fotoriety. 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]

Hello, Fotoriety. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fotoriety. 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]