Thanks for visiting my Talk: page.
If you are considering posting something to me, please: *Post new messages to the bottom of my talk page.
Comments which fail to follow the four rules above may be immediately archived or deleted. Thanks again for visiting. |
{{ Welcome}} (I see you know your way around, but welcome nonetheless). JFW | T@lk 21:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for heads-up. AnonMoos 19:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
"Passover *definitely* is not the 'Jewish Easter'" Why not? -- Vít Zvánovec 15:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I've sprotected the pages for now; perhaps that will bring the anon to the Talk: page. Jayjg (talk) 22:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I have removed violating image please destroy image. I guess i'll have to take a picture of my self wearing one then —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucy-marie ( talk • contribs) 29 May 2006
Dear Dbratton.
It is a direct quote from the book Sdei Chemed.
The book is widely available to buy.
I have a photocopy of the book were he writes it and if you or someone can show me how I would gladly scan it for everyone to see.
About the verbal problems please be specific it’s probably a wording problem and I most probably didn’t express myself good.
BTW, someone with user name Jbolden1517 is personally angry with me because something else I wrote, so he deleted the entire part about Metzitzah, not knowing that it is a vital part of Brit milah, and not even taking time to realize that I am not the author of the article except for this one part. Instead, he slanders me with out any foundation or proof.
So would you please be so kind and revert it? Like this, it’s not personal.
Bloger 18:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Why is that peice of information notable, as you put it, "for its implications"? What implications are those? The trivia point is vague and if it should be kept, it needs to be re-written to be clear in it's intention. It contains what appears to be Original Research when all that it says that connects the two books is that the plots are "similar." I'm very familiar with An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge and am really curious what it has to do with the plot outside of Dave (Lost). If anything the reference to The Third Policeman should be excised (and stand on it's own in the previous episode it appeared in), and a clear reasoning for the inclusion of "Owl Creek" should hold up based on its own, without the vauge reference. Help me out here. Thanks. Radagast83 04:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
If you would note the previous pages, you would note that the self-described "defender of Judaism" seems to have no objections to falsely attacking others. I agree it is ridiculous, and, in her case, has seemingly been so since the start. Also, that person had explicitly stated at least once that a direct response to a reasonable point would never be forthcoming. For what little it might be worth, this "person" in question will be intermittently watched by me in the event further discussions of this sort ever happen again. I note that s/he was treated with more civility than s/he displayed from the beginning, and used that advantage to insult and demean others regularly. In fact, I even tried to defend him/her in the beginning, before I (and I think everyone else) saw how consistently s/he was failing to live up to the standards s/he wishes others to follow. I realize that these issues are inherently emotional. However, this particular person has demonstrated, I think to everyone, that emotion, and not reason, is all s/he is capable of. Rationally, that point could have been made and left. However, s/he insisted on repeatedly accusing others of bad faith and pointedly refusing to answer points made against him/her. That is truly ridiculous. I am personally a member of I think all but maybe five projects on the Philosophy and religion directory page, and I am fairly sure I will be on hand in the event discussion like this ever takes place again. If it does, I will ensure that the other party is treated no better than s/he treats others. It will be interesting to see the response. Badbilltucker 00:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
(once again caught in edit conflict with person who insists on revising her own words immediately every time, for reasons we can only speculate about)
Hi Daniel: What do you make of Nazuraiun? Thanks, IZAK 10:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nazuraiun. Thank you. IZAK 13:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for this. I had accidentally reverted to a different version than I intended! : ) -- MPerel ( talk | contrib) 06:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I am happy that my thought and some others' efforts to give it a good acceptable shape is liked by you. Pray for me so that I can reach my scientific goal with due knowledge and due tolerance.
Regards
Samir
Aurthor/creator of the article Philosophy of Death and Adjustment 203.112.197.69 13:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, we have been down this road before. A very large number of Messianics study the Talmud. I provided five citations that support this in the talk page. You will not be reverting it again. Noogster 01:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome! I thought about leaving you a message, but decided that you would probably have come back to finish the job shortly. - Fayenatic london (talk) 14:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Could you have a look at these articles and their talk?
I feel the articles are extremely well sourced and balanced. I'd like somebody else to remove the tags. Please look at my last versions, because I have run up against somebody from the evolution/creation universe who wants to pick a fight. -- Metzenberg 03:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure how this was vandalism; an article about sheep behavior referenced in the sheep article with its source linked. Can you please explain? Thanks! 68.158.243.198 8:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#"Jewish descent" versus Jew concerning the problems of using the term "Jewish descent" versus "Jew" as well as the related proposal. Thank you, IZAK 10:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
((unblock-auto|1=86.136.244.238|2=repeated vandalism from this range, sorry|3=Can't sleep, clown will eat me)) Daniel C/ T + 21:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Why are you reverting the article Who is a Jew? without one iota of use of that article's Talk page? Bus stop 14:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for contributing to the MJ discussion. Your input is valued, and welcomed! Shalom. inigmatus 18:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Always here to help. :) I'm guessing that this is an IP hopping vandal? -- Woohookitty Woohoo! 01:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Plwase see my response to you on the Ashkenazi Jews talk page :-) Thank you. M.V.E.i. 21:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello Dbratton: Hope all goes well with you and yours. The series of articles on the History of the Jews in Europe is complete. All the European countries have articles, even if they are stubs for now. However there are still two more: History of the Jews in Wales and History of the Jews in Northern Ireland (see related articles History of the Jews in England and History of the Jews in Scotland) that are listed as countries in template {{|Europe topic|History of the Jews in}} that require someone to add information and start the article. If you are able to, your efforts would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, IZAK 13:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in my recent RfA. Although the voting ended at 36/22/5, there was no consensus to promote, and the RfA was unsuccessful. I would like the thank you nonetheless for supporting me during the RfA, and hope that any future RfA’s proceed better than this one did. Again, I thank you for your support. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 02:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Your pages wasn't rendering correctly on my browser so I changed the code. The "float:left" confuses the creation of the table of content, and the multiple "<br>"s can only help in most of the cases. As the banner is intended to go across the whole screen the "float:left" is unnecessary. If you want to change it back, go ahead. Jon513 ( talk) 10:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind words. I noticed something interesting on your talk page: [1] Looks great! :-) Jayjg (talk) 03:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi! You reverted an edit to the Hannukah article with a comment that the edit, giving religious usage for the blessing in Hebrew, is not allowable because "This is a secular encyclopedia." I would disagree that this is a secular encyclopedia. This is an encyclopedia that is neutral as to point of view, and User:Jimbo Wales has gone on record saying that Wikipedia should not prefer a secular point of view to a religious one. Neutrality is particularly relevant here because the article is on a religious subject, and religious points of view and religious usage in that religion are necessarily relevant to its content. The question of the most appropriate way to print the Hebrew involved is a matter of usage subject to discussion. Would suggest bringing up the matter on the article's talk page. There was at one time a discussion in WP:JUDAISM about style in this regard but an attempt to set general rules was inconclusive. If you believe there should be general rules, suggest bringing it up at the WikiProject level. In all candor, because I think either position works and there doesn't seem to be any consensus, I probably wouldn't have done anything if you had made this change without making the claim you made about the nature of Wikipedia. Best, -- Shirahadasha ( talk) 02:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Took a look at http://infidels.org/library/modern/features/2000/lowder2.html. It is an interesting perspective, but I don't think it's an exact analogy. As I understand it, the WP:NPOV policy allows and sometimes requires the articulation of explicitly religious points of view in Wikipedia articles of a sort which the Supreme Court's interpretation of the [Establishment Clause]] would doubtless not permit in a public school curriculum. This is perhaps particularly true of religion articles. On the original subject, I would be inclined to think that how to spell out a blessing would depend on usage rather than any a priori policy rule. Hannukah blessings would seem more general and common across denominations. But there are doubtless quite a few blessings that are only used in the Orthodox would and it's plausible that the only people who would actually say them would probably use the tetragrammaton-conscious spelling. The blessing on immersing dishes in a mikvah or seeing a king come to mind, among other things. Hope you're having a Happy New Year. Best, -- Shirahadasha ( talk) 00:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey there, I wanted to do a quick follow up to our Sephardi Jews discussion. When dealing with pictures, please bear in mind that the photos may show up in a different alignement for different computers based on different dpi and font settings. In my experience, people tend to have a very narrow view that the way the page looks on their computer is the way it looks on everyone's computer when this is not the case. For instance, on my computer, the Sephardi Jews page has 2 rows of three pictures and then Spinoza centered in a 3rd row. I bet it doesn't do that on your computer. I'm glad we came to a conclusion on this. Just wanted to give you some perspective.-- Dr who1975 ( talk) 16:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Five editors have responded to my proposal to change the name of the article Binding of Isaac to "Sacrifice of Isaac" at Talk:Binding of Isaac#Name of this article. Four oppose and one is neutral. The consensus is opposed to the name change. I'll therfore leave the article as currently named ("Binding of Isaac") and consider the matter closed. Thanks for your participation! -- Bryan H Bell ( talk) 03:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
If it is possible please write your opinion on my topic on Messianic Judaism page about Daniel Zion. Thank you. Vladislav1968 ( talk) 08:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)Vladislav1968
The WikiProject Judaism Newsletter
| |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
This newsletter was automatically delivered by ShepBot because you are a member of the WikiProject. If you would like to opt out of future mailings, please remove your name from this list. Delivered by §hepBot ( Disable) on 04:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
The Judaism Newsletter
| |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
This newsletter was automatically delivered because you are a member of one or more Judaism related WikiProjects. If you would like to opt out of future mailings, please remove your name from this list.
The Judaism Newsletter
| |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
This newsletter was automatically delivered because you are a member of one or more Judaism related WikiProjects. If you would like to opt out of future mailings, please remove your name from
this list. As always, please direct all questions, comments, requests, barnstars, offers of help, and angry all-caps anti-semitic rants to my talk page. Thanks, and have a great month.
L'Aquatique
approves|
this|
message 20:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey, your Talk: page looks very similar to mine. :-) Anyway, thanks for reverting that nonsense off my Talk: page. Jayjg (talk) 21:01, 25 December 2008 (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) 13:07, 23 November 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) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for visiting my Talk: page.
If you are considering posting something to me, please: *Post new messages to the bottom of my talk page.
Comments which fail to follow the four rules above may be immediately archived or deleted. Thanks again for visiting. |
{{ Welcome}} (I see you know your way around, but welcome nonetheless). JFW | T@lk 21:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for heads-up. AnonMoos 19:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
"Passover *definitely* is not the 'Jewish Easter'" Why not? -- Vít Zvánovec 15:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I've sprotected the pages for now; perhaps that will bring the anon to the Talk: page. Jayjg (talk) 22:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I have removed violating image please destroy image. I guess i'll have to take a picture of my self wearing one then —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucy-marie ( talk • contribs) 29 May 2006
Dear Dbratton.
It is a direct quote from the book Sdei Chemed.
The book is widely available to buy.
I have a photocopy of the book were he writes it and if you or someone can show me how I would gladly scan it for everyone to see.
About the verbal problems please be specific it’s probably a wording problem and I most probably didn’t express myself good.
BTW, someone with user name Jbolden1517 is personally angry with me because something else I wrote, so he deleted the entire part about Metzitzah, not knowing that it is a vital part of Brit milah, and not even taking time to realize that I am not the author of the article except for this one part. Instead, he slanders me with out any foundation or proof.
So would you please be so kind and revert it? Like this, it’s not personal.
Bloger 18:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Why is that peice of information notable, as you put it, "for its implications"? What implications are those? The trivia point is vague and if it should be kept, it needs to be re-written to be clear in it's intention. It contains what appears to be Original Research when all that it says that connects the two books is that the plots are "similar." I'm very familiar with An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge and am really curious what it has to do with the plot outside of Dave (Lost). If anything the reference to The Third Policeman should be excised (and stand on it's own in the previous episode it appeared in), and a clear reasoning for the inclusion of "Owl Creek" should hold up based on its own, without the vauge reference. Help me out here. Thanks. Radagast83 04:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
If you would note the previous pages, you would note that the self-described "defender of Judaism" seems to have no objections to falsely attacking others. I agree it is ridiculous, and, in her case, has seemingly been so since the start. Also, that person had explicitly stated at least once that a direct response to a reasonable point would never be forthcoming. For what little it might be worth, this "person" in question will be intermittently watched by me in the event further discussions of this sort ever happen again. I note that s/he was treated with more civility than s/he displayed from the beginning, and used that advantage to insult and demean others regularly. In fact, I even tried to defend him/her in the beginning, before I (and I think everyone else) saw how consistently s/he was failing to live up to the standards s/he wishes others to follow. I realize that these issues are inherently emotional. However, this particular person has demonstrated, I think to everyone, that emotion, and not reason, is all s/he is capable of. Rationally, that point could have been made and left. However, s/he insisted on repeatedly accusing others of bad faith and pointedly refusing to answer points made against him/her. That is truly ridiculous. I am personally a member of I think all but maybe five projects on the Philosophy and religion directory page, and I am fairly sure I will be on hand in the event discussion like this ever takes place again. If it does, I will ensure that the other party is treated no better than s/he treats others. It will be interesting to see the response. Badbilltucker 00:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
(once again caught in edit conflict with person who insists on revising her own words immediately every time, for reasons we can only speculate about)
Hi Daniel: What do you make of Nazuraiun? Thanks, IZAK 10:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nazuraiun. Thank you. IZAK 13:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for this. I had accidentally reverted to a different version than I intended! : ) -- MPerel ( talk | contrib) 06:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I am happy that my thought and some others' efforts to give it a good acceptable shape is liked by you. Pray for me so that I can reach my scientific goal with due knowledge and due tolerance.
Regards
Samir
Aurthor/creator of the article Philosophy of Death and Adjustment 203.112.197.69 13:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, we have been down this road before. A very large number of Messianics study the Talmud. I provided five citations that support this in the talk page. You will not be reverting it again. Noogster 01:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome! I thought about leaving you a message, but decided that you would probably have come back to finish the job shortly. - Fayenatic london (talk) 14:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Could you have a look at these articles and their talk?
I feel the articles are extremely well sourced and balanced. I'd like somebody else to remove the tags. Please look at my last versions, because I have run up against somebody from the evolution/creation universe who wants to pick a fight. -- Metzenberg 03:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure how this was vandalism; an article about sheep behavior referenced in the sheep article with its source linked. Can you please explain? Thanks! 68.158.243.198 8:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#"Jewish descent" versus Jew concerning the problems of using the term "Jewish descent" versus "Jew" as well as the related proposal. Thank you, IZAK 10:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
((unblock-auto|1=86.136.244.238|2=repeated vandalism from this range, sorry|3=Can't sleep, clown will eat me)) Daniel C/ T + 21:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Why are you reverting the article Who is a Jew? without one iota of use of that article's Talk page? Bus stop 14:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for contributing to the MJ discussion. Your input is valued, and welcomed! Shalom. inigmatus 18:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Always here to help. :) I'm guessing that this is an IP hopping vandal? -- Woohookitty Woohoo! 01:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Plwase see my response to you on the Ashkenazi Jews talk page :-) Thank you. M.V.E.i. 21:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello Dbratton: Hope all goes well with you and yours. The series of articles on the History of the Jews in Europe is complete. All the European countries have articles, even if they are stubs for now. However there are still two more: History of the Jews in Wales and History of the Jews in Northern Ireland (see related articles History of the Jews in England and History of the Jews in Scotland) that are listed as countries in template {{|Europe topic|History of the Jews in}} that require someone to add information and start the article. If you are able to, your efforts would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, IZAK 13:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in my recent RfA. Although the voting ended at 36/22/5, there was no consensus to promote, and the RfA was unsuccessful. I would like the thank you nonetheless for supporting me during the RfA, and hope that any future RfA’s proceed better than this one did. Again, I thank you for your support. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 02:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Your pages wasn't rendering correctly on my browser so I changed the code. The "float:left" confuses the creation of the table of content, and the multiple "<br>"s can only help in most of the cases. As the banner is intended to go across the whole screen the "float:left" is unnecessary. If you want to change it back, go ahead. Jon513 ( talk) 10:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind words. I noticed something interesting on your talk page: [1] Looks great! :-) Jayjg (talk) 03:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi! You reverted an edit to the Hannukah article with a comment that the edit, giving religious usage for the blessing in Hebrew, is not allowable because "This is a secular encyclopedia." I would disagree that this is a secular encyclopedia. This is an encyclopedia that is neutral as to point of view, and User:Jimbo Wales has gone on record saying that Wikipedia should not prefer a secular point of view to a religious one. Neutrality is particularly relevant here because the article is on a religious subject, and religious points of view and religious usage in that religion are necessarily relevant to its content. The question of the most appropriate way to print the Hebrew involved is a matter of usage subject to discussion. Would suggest bringing up the matter on the article's talk page. There was at one time a discussion in WP:JUDAISM about style in this regard but an attempt to set general rules was inconclusive. If you believe there should be general rules, suggest bringing it up at the WikiProject level. In all candor, because I think either position works and there doesn't seem to be any consensus, I probably wouldn't have done anything if you had made this change without making the claim you made about the nature of Wikipedia. Best, -- Shirahadasha ( talk) 02:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Took a look at http://infidels.org/library/modern/features/2000/lowder2.html. It is an interesting perspective, but I don't think it's an exact analogy. As I understand it, the WP:NPOV policy allows and sometimes requires the articulation of explicitly religious points of view in Wikipedia articles of a sort which the Supreme Court's interpretation of the [Establishment Clause]] would doubtless not permit in a public school curriculum. This is perhaps particularly true of religion articles. On the original subject, I would be inclined to think that how to spell out a blessing would depend on usage rather than any a priori policy rule. Hannukah blessings would seem more general and common across denominations. But there are doubtless quite a few blessings that are only used in the Orthodox would and it's plausible that the only people who would actually say them would probably use the tetragrammaton-conscious spelling. The blessing on immersing dishes in a mikvah or seeing a king come to mind, among other things. Hope you're having a Happy New Year. Best, -- Shirahadasha ( talk) 00:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey there, I wanted to do a quick follow up to our Sephardi Jews discussion. When dealing with pictures, please bear in mind that the photos may show up in a different alignement for different computers based on different dpi and font settings. In my experience, people tend to have a very narrow view that the way the page looks on their computer is the way it looks on everyone's computer when this is not the case. For instance, on my computer, the Sephardi Jews page has 2 rows of three pictures and then Spinoza centered in a 3rd row. I bet it doesn't do that on your computer. I'm glad we came to a conclusion on this. Just wanted to give you some perspective.-- Dr who1975 ( talk) 16:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Five editors have responded to my proposal to change the name of the article Binding of Isaac to "Sacrifice of Isaac" at Talk:Binding of Isaac#Name of this article. Four oppose and one is neutral. The consensus is opposed to the name change. I'll therfore leave the article as currently named ("Binding of Isaac") and consider the matter closed. Thanks for your participation! -- Bryan H Bell ( talk) 03:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
If it is possible please write your opinion on my topic on Messianic Judaism page about Daniel Zion. Thank you. Vladislav1968 ( talk) 08:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)Vladislav1968
The WikiProject Judaism Newsletter
| |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
This newsletter was automatically delivered by ShepBot because you are a member of the WikiProject. If you would like to opt out of future mailings, please remove your name from this list. Delivered by §hepBot ( Disable) on 04:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
The Judaism Newsletter
| |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
This newsletter was automatically delivered because you are a member of one or more Judaism related WikiProjects. If you would like to opt out of future mailings, please remove your name from this list.
The Judaism Newsletter
| |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
This newsletter was automatically delivered because you are a member of one or more Judaism related WikiProjects. If you would like to opt out of future mailings, please remove your name from
this list. As always, please direct all questions, comments, requests, barnstars, offers of help, and angry all-caps anti-semitic rants to my talk page. Thanks, and have a great month.
L'Aquatique
approves|
this|
message 20:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey, your Talk: page looks very similar to mine. :-) Anyway, thanks for reverting that nonsense off my Talk: page. Jayjg (talk) 21:01, 25 December 2008 (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) 13:07, 23 November 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) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)