Holanthony

Welcome!

Hello, Holanthony, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits to the page Mason Moore have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may be removed if they have not yet been. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. As well, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  Dismas|^(talk) 20:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

December 2014

Hello, I'm Winkelvi. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to George H. W. Bush because it did not appear encyclopedia in nature. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:56, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your message-RFD (talk) 23:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Bowers etc

Can I ask why you think the Bowers stuff should be included in the Tracy and Hepburn articles? It really doesn't deserve a mention. The Hepburn lesbian stuff has been around long enough to warrant a quick mention of it in her article, which I included, but it doesn't need detail (since the evidence for it is so slim). The Tracy rumours come solely from Bowers, though, and the fact that James Curtis (who did an incredible amount of detail for his biography) felt that there was no need to cover it in his book means the WP article shouldn't either. He only mentions Bowers, and the possibility of ST being bisexual, in the "Author's note" section at the end - and that is purely to dismiss his claims. For an example of how ridiculous Bowers is, William Mann interviewed him for his biography on Hepburn back in 2007. At this time, Bowers told Mann that Tracy was gay but said nothing about Kate. Then a few years later and he's claiming that he hooked KH up with 150 women. If this was true, surely he would have told Mann, and Mann would include it in the book (since he argues that KH was probably gay)? Obvious proof that Bowers is a liar. It's such a trashy book, and we're meant to use good quality sources. If the same sort of lame rumours, from the same sort of source, were included in a BLP (say, the ones about Hugh Jackman) they'd be removed instantly. I think the same standards should apply for dead people. --Loeba (talk) 19:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Completely agree with Loebs. What you added is utter nonsense, tabloid fodder. Has no place in an encyclopedia article. Sensationalist writers do it all the time, Liz Taylor sucking the cocks of studio executives in the back of limos, threesomes with presidents, just doesn't belong on wikipedia. I dare say Tracy did a lot of things when drunk, and I'm sure a lot of straight men have done some dubious things when drunk. These people are only out to make a buck Holanthony.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Holanthony: I was flexible regarding Tracy, but I'm strongly against including any mention of Bowers on Kate's page. It's so obviously a lie, for the reason I gave above, that it would be embarrassing to mention it. I've also mentioned something else in my edit summary: Bowers claimed that he met Hepburn in 1949, and that most of the women he set her up with was during the 1950s. It's VERY unlikely he could have linked her with 150 women in that time because she spent much of the 1950s working abroad or travelling; when she was back in the US, she was at her home in New York (while Bowers was in LA). And how is it that not one of these 150 women has ever came forward? I am 100% sure, based on my extensive research of Hepburn, that it's a lie. If solid evidence of an affair with a woman materialises then I'd be in favour of including it - I don't care if she was bisexual - but at this point there's nothing and no reason for thinking she was. --Loeba (talk) 20:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Just remembered that most of the stuff in your recent revision was about "Barbara". Sorry but I'm kind of amazed you can fall for this. Even if Bowers did know Kate in the 50s - which I doubt he ever did but anyway - how would he know that they stayed in touch for 40 years? Let alone the inheritance claim - how would he know that? He'd only know that if he was still a good friend of this Barbara, and if she was a good friend he wouldn't be outing her private relationship to the world. --Loeba (talk) 21:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Please stop. Three or four people have already reverted you. Just take the hint.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Life Is Strange

Hi, I feel like giving you an additional reason for why I reverted your recent edit. Apart from Wikipedia:Too much detail regarding episode 2, I feel like the season 2 section would only be warranted if the material was stronger than "it’s not in the works, but we have started the very early stages of conception". And I'm not even sure there should be one there. It would have its own article once the material is strong enough, like The Walking Dead: Season Two. I hope you understand, since I'm aiming for the article to reach good article quality. Cognissonance (talk) 17:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Caressa Savage

Hi Holanthony, I can appreciate that you are trying to add content to improve various articles, but this is a biography of a living person so it receives under extra scrutiny and is subject to fairly specific guidelines and policy regarding sourcing. You provided no reliable source that states that the Facebook link you found is connected to the person that went by the stage name of Caressa Savage. Please do not re-insert this links without an ironclad source that links the two. If you would like to discuss this, I invite you to do so at the Porn Project talk page. Regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Celeste Star (actress) (April 29)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CookieMonster755 was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Celeste Star (actress) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

CookieMonster755 (talk) 03:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Teahouse, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! CookieMonster755 (talk) 03:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello

Hello. I'm newcomer in this site and i noticed you in Wesley Pipes' page. I just wanted to know if you can help me adding content to his page. Thank you :) --WesleyPipes FanGirl (talk) 15:51, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Celeste Star (actress) concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Celeste Star (actress), a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. 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.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

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) 00:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Celeste Star (actress)

Hello, Holanthony. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Celeste Star".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 23:36, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Celeste Star (actress) (November 4)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Celeste Star (actress) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Holanthony, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Robert McClenon (talk) 17:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Celeste Star (actress) (November 5)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Wikiisawesome was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Celeste Star (actress) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

/wia /tlk 13:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Celeste Star (actress) (November 7)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SwisterTwister was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Celeste Star (actress) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Celeste Star (actress) (November 8)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Onel5969 was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Celeste Star (actress) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:55, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Charles Laughton

Please stop posting the same scurrilous Scotty Bowers rumors in the Charles Laughton article; Bowers is a known liar. Thank you. You will cease posting it after I have reverted it. Stolengood (talk) 05:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

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) 14:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Paul Norman (director) (December 12)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Onel5969 was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Paul Norman (director) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:57, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Paul Norman (director) has been accepted

Paul Norman (director), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been 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 how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to 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. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Celeste Star (actress) (January 4)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by FoCuSandLeArN was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Celeste Star (actress) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 20:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Talkpage

Hi, When an editor tells you to stay off their talkpage then you respect their wishes and stay off .... Reverting them isn't a wise decision and could see you blocked for disruptive editing. –Davey2010^Talk 23:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

HW

On this [1] and similar, HW has never been known for his civility, as is well evidenced on his talk page (including comments hidden by him). That was also my experience. The only way forward I see is taking any dispute with this troll to WP:RFC or possibly WP:DRN. Regards, — kashmiri ^TALK 00:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Celeste Star (actress) concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Celeste Star (actress), a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. 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.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

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) 01:31, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Use of refs for diffs at ANI

I'm cross-posting this to you and MarnetteD.

refs added, Reflist talk added, refs changed to bare URLs, Reflist talk removed, another ref added, another ref added, Reflist talk re-added. And so on.

People generally don't use refs for diffs. It's more work—in adding the ref, adding the Reflist talk, and even in viewing the diff. There is no upside. I have no way of knowing whether you and MarnetteD missed my refactoring (either in the page history or in its effect in the thread), or saw it and disagreed with it. Therefore I'm not going to do it again. But I disagree with the Reflist talk "fix" to the problem. It makes far more sense to convert the refs to bare URLs and forget the Reflist talk. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 days for edit warring at Charles Laughton. Considering that you have been conducting the same edit war for a few days short of a year and 8 months, this is a short token block in the hope that it will convey to you that edit-warring is unacceptable. I also note that there is a very clear consensus against the content you have been repeatedly adding. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:45, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Holanthony (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The reason for the block cited has been that there is "consensus" against the content inserted. This is not true, there were two users opposed to the content, and many more were in favor. There were however, an anonymous user who repeatedly and wantonly deleted the text, but I hardly think this counts as a valid voice in this context. Furthermore, User:JamesBWatson himself set the page to semi-protected mode just because someone deleted the text. The fact that Wolfowiz cited BLP issues for a person who has been dead for over 50 years I don't feel constitutes a valid reason to remove the text as it is not in breach of any of the Wikipedia rules. The source is reliable, the subject is deceased and we cannot remove text on the sole basis of perceived offense by some users. For this reason I would ask that the ban is lifted and the text reinserted. Holanthony (talk) 21:51, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You are blocked for edit warring; you'll need to address that and only that in any unblock request. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 23:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Holanthony (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Ok, then I would like to request a lifting of the ban because I did in fact raise the issue on the talk page first and an editor contacted Wolfowiz and asked him to cease his disruptive edits. He refused so I reverted him, explaing that he needed to wait for the matter to be discussed on the talk page. He refused repeatedly. I have tried contacting him on his talk page but he constantly deletes and ignores any attempt I make to contact him there. The only time he ever communicates with me is through the edit summaries of the revert posts. Only there can I present any arguments to him and hear his arguments in return, hence the need of doing it that way. Unfortunately, this may also be perceived as an "edit war" and I apologize for any such inconvenience, but it is in fact even more so a way for me to hold any kind of dialogue with Wolfowiz. I wish I could take it on his talk page instead like I do with any other user, but it is his choice that I cannot. Hence I request a repeal of the ban. Holanthony (talk) 23:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Having looked at your recent contribution history this is very clearly an edit war, not an "attempt at dialogue". I can't envisage any circumstances in which "I can only communicate through the medium of edit summaries so I need to keep reverting other editors" would be a valid excuse—even if such an instance existed, you could still generate edit summaries without reverting people. Given that you don't appear to understand why you're blocked, I haven't any confidence that you won't pick up where you left off the moment I lift it. ‑ Iridescent 07:27, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Just to be clear:

1. The block was for edit-warring, as I stated in the block notice: "You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 days for edit warring at Charles Laughton". I also made a comment about consensus, but that was not given as the reason for the block. There is certainly consensus in the talk page discussion, but possibly my blanket statement about consensus may perhaps have wanted qualification if we take into account the editing history: I don't know. However, I did do plenty of checking of your edit-warring, which was perfectly clear, and is the reason for the block.
2. I did not semi-protect the article "just because someone deleted the text". I did so because of long-term disruptive editing, including edit-warring, pretending to protect a page which was not protected, etc etc. My protecting the article did not imply support for the content that the disruptive edit-warring editor tried to get rid of then, any more than my blocking you indicates support for removing the content. In both cases my actions were because of disruptive behaviour, not because of any opinion on the validity or otherwise of the content.
3. To say without qualification that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz "cited BLP issues for a person who has been dead for over 50 years" is at best misleading. He mentioned the BLP issues, but I haven't seen anything he wrote anywhere which could reasonably be construed as suggesting that the BLP policy applied to Charles Laughton. This seems similar to your misreading my side remark about consensus as being the reason for the block. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

User talk:JamesBWatson

1. Sorry, not sure I understand what your statement "There is certainly consensus in the talk page discussion, but possibly my blanket statement about consensus may perhaps have wanted qualification if we take into account the editing history". You agree to the fact that there were only two (three with Wolfowitz" that supported the removal of the text (of which the other two were active a whole year ago and were not part of the present debate in which only Wolfowitz supported the removal)? You will also note that the admin User:Bjelleklang contacted Wolfowitz on his talk page, asking him to stop making the edits. In spite of this he persisted, ignoring what Bjelleklang told him.

2. The exact words Wolfowitz used were "WP:BLP does not authorize scandalmongering about the dead". [2] That seems to be me about as obvious invocation of the BLP policy as you can get. How can one possibly interpret those words differently? Holanthony (talk) 09:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Holanthony. 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)

Isis Nile

I made this edit for you. I hope you don't mind. Thank you for helping me. --Gstree (talk) 05:03, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are indefinitely topic-banned from editing in the BLP topic area, specifically "any edit in any article with biographical content relating to living or recently deceased people, or any edit relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles of any page in any namespace".

You have been sanctioned because of a long-term pattern of disruptive editing of BLPs, including adding information cited to unreliable sources, edit-warring, and adding original research. You were previously warned by multiple experienced users to improve your standard of editing of BLPs (ANI). Since then you have continued your poor editing, such as adding material cited to a work of fiction and advocating OR.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. BethNaught (talk) 14:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Holanthony. 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)