Zanaq

Here you may always address me or ask for my help... Respond to remarks on your talk page.... on your talk page!!1! Questions posed here, will be answered here.

Welcome!

Hello, Zanaq, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few 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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- Longhair | Talk 11:08, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Fauxbourdon

Hi Zanaq! Thank you for starting Faux Bourdon; I've been meaning to do that for a long time now. Welcome to the Wiki! Antandrus (talk) 20:48, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Mysterious Order of the Veiled Prophet of the Enchanted Realm

I didn't blank the article. I deleted a considerable amount of the article's text, yes, but it was superfluous information. There was still an article left afterwards; you'll note that after you reverted my changes, the very next user to edit the article deleted almost as much as I had. DS 01:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I was contemplating a rv on that as well. why did I revert yours then?

• the second edit was not tagged as minor.
• the second edit wiped less
• a second attempt to wipe points towards a consensus to wipe.

-- Zanaq 05:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

eh?

Just wondering why you reverted my edit to cigar in addition to removing a link - a mistake perhaps? Regards — Dan | Talk

Definitely a mistake. I dont remember exactly what I meant to do, and I certainly didn't intend to revert your edit. I also remember checking that link, and deciding not to remove it. I reverted something, I cannot remember what, and marked it as minor and didn't bother to type a comment. I figure something something went wrong there, apologies. Zanaq 21:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Tolerance

The tweaking (tweeking) was mine, I just hadn't bothered logging back on. (Sorry.) The tweak is better because Rawls wrote A Theory of Justice about a just society. Of course one could argue that in this case just and ideal are the same thing. Cheers, Vincent 03:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

If you have read the book and still think the change is an improvement, change it back. It just seems that it was a sortof quote, and I regard changes to apparent quotes with suspicion, especially from ano's. Zanaq 09:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

link removal

why the removal of the cigarzilla link?

because linkspam is a plague. Zanaq 09:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

cigarzilla is not linkspam

no, but adding links is. Zanaq 14:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

i'm not sure i understand, are there to be no more links added to the external links section? cigarzilla has no ads, there is no profit, all run and maintained privately as place for people to get together in real time to discuss cigar smoking. very few sites offer this type of environment and cigarzilla is the most active by far.

Ok, just because you ask nicely and explained it: I just moved it to the bottom and removed the blatant advertisment "the internets biggest". Let's see what the community thinks. Zanaq 19:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Why did you remove all the blogs links from the article on cigar ? Does not make sense to me. Could you pls. be kind enough as to explain why? Cheers & regards g999b. March, 28, 2006.

Because they did not seem to add any value. If you can point out a specific case, I might have more specific info for you. Zanaq 11:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I dispute your claim that they "did not seem to add any value," and I'd like the "more specific info" you refer to. You seem to have a strange idea of what "valuable" links are to people interested in cigars.

You ask that a specific case be pointed out. I will point out several.

You include links to a very small blog, a small forum, the main cigar pass site, a semi-defunct information site that hasn't updated in months, and to two of the three U.S. cigar magazines. This is "sites that add value?"

You exlude Cigar Cyclopedia, one of the major industry resources for price and brand information and one of the most valuable and legitimate resources on the net for cigar information. Most of the places you list links to cite Rich Perelman and include his information on their sites. Why is he excluded?

You exclude the About.com Cigar site owned by the New York Times that maintains very high journalism standards. Instead, you include a site that hasn't posted an updated article since February 27, 2006 nor a cigar review since March 5, 2004 and has an rss feed that is just industry press releases. How did you make that decision?

You exclude the Internet Cigar Group--one of the largest and oldest cigar forums on the net, yet you include the small forum Cigarzilla (97 registered members, 673 total posts--nothing wrong with Cigarzilla, mind you, just not the single forum that most people would select as the only forum to link to). You also exclude the usenet Cigar discussion group, which antedates everything else listed here and is still going strong. Why none of the major cigar forums?

You exclude Smoke Magazine, the oldest cigar-related U.S. magazine, but you include Cigar Aficionado and JR Cigar's Smoke. Why that omission, and why include any of the cigar magazines at all if your resource section is going to be so limited?

You exclude all blogs except for one single blog that has only been around since May 13, 2006(!) and has a total of only 10 articles published to date. Why is that blog included? Why are all other blogs removed?

Why are you removing all of these resources that are much older, highly respected and authoritative, and listed just about everywhere on English-language cigar sites that include lists of cigar resource pages, and only including a small handful of much less authoritative sites? What basis are you using to make your decisions on what adds "value" to the cigar article?

Linkspam is done to benefit small sites or sites that don't update regularly and that need a boost in the search engines. A couple of the sites that you have repeatedly included fit the linkspam definition perfectly. Each of the sites you keep removing already ranks high in Google and other search engines. That's not linkspam. It is augmenting the information in the article and providing valuable resources.

What criteria are you using to decide which links you allow to remain on the cigar article page? Thomherfs 01:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a collection of links, and your contributions fit the profile of a linkspammer. My main criterion is the non-commercial nature of the links, and the availability of information that should not be included in an encyclopedia. Zanaq 13:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Solar System link removal

Just curious why you removed the Solar System scale model link that I added--you mention that you saw "nothing remotely like a scale model," is this semantic? Or did you really not see the scale aspects of the website?

Here it is again, if you want to check it out : http://devhed.com/solar-system

I did not scroll to the right. Now I have, and I do not find this model particularly useful. However, it seems more useful than the google-earth powered model. Greetings. — Zanaq (?) 09:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Tawkerbot2

Yes, it's cross wiki compatible, it just needs a little more tweaking (the warning system needs work and the reporting is half effective) and sure, I'll either run it or give you the code whatever works best -- Tawker 02:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The rest of this discussion may be found on User talk:Tawker. Zanaq 10:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Arnold.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Arnold.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 16:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

answered on: User_talk:Carnildo/images:

You're bot contacted me about this image, however I only uploaded some enhancements, and then reverted to the original version by User:ChrisDJackson. The copyright status is unchanged, so maybe you could notify him if you still feel the need. Zanaq 16:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

No prob

We pride outselves on quick service. --OrbitOne talk 19:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Dear Zanaq, thanks for supporting me for your first pro voting! You even noticed some positive facts about my editing in the past. However, I think I will fail your support from now on because of the speaking on dutch wiki. I am sorry, because you let yourself go. I wish you very much strength in this difficult time. Thanks again and hope to see you around in another nick. Froggy

Thank you, Froggy. I hope I will be able to return under the same nick. Het is duidelijk dat mijn uitlatingen ontoelaatbaar waren, maar ik ben blij dat zoveel gebruikers mijn opmerking wel goed gelezen hebben en in de context zien. Bessels en Torero's reacties gaven mij een goed gevoel. Fr33ke had ook een hele mooie, met interessante links, en Technische Fred was goed op dreef. Mocht ik niet voor zes maanden geblokkeerd worden, dan ga ik graag de voorgestelde samenwerking met Bessel aan. Jammer dat je je vertrouwen in mij verloren hebt, maar ik zal mijn best doen om het te herwinnen, over twee weken of een half jaar. See you around. Zanaq 10:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

nee, je leest het verkeerd, ik zal je steun missen. Verder maakt iedereen wel eens een fout, alleen deze was extreem. Ik zou ook wel eens willen schelden, maar tot nog toe heb ik geluk gehad. Je kunt toch opnieuw beginnen onder een andere naam. Alleen zal je al je edits kwijt zijn. Of een half jaar wachten (of langer). Goed, sterkte nog en tot schrijfs. Sorry for our english readers for editting in Dutch.Froggyyes 23:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Tjah, en anders leg je gewoon de naam Zanaq neer, en kom je als nieuwe gebruiker terug zeker, en houd je je gewoon koest in overleg.... Er zijn wel meer gebruikers die zoiets gedaan hebben naar het schijnt (ik heb al zo'n dingen gelezen tussen de regels van de mensen die waarschijnlijk als eerste zouden komen moord en brand schreeuwen wanneer ze het zouden ontdekken)... Nu ja, zo zie je maar, die overlegpagina's zijn niet goed voor de gezondheid; ik moet ook vaak mijn best doen er wat weg te blijven en te doen waarvoor WP dient: aan artikelen werken. ;-)

Thank you as well. Ik waardeerde jouw opmerkingen ook bijzonder. Ik bedoelde niet zo'n enorme rel te schoppen, en wikipedianen weg te jagen. Ik wilde slechts het overal maar beledigingen zien aan de kaak te stellen. Ik hoop je nog vaak op overlegpagina's te ontmoeten, en op die manier de kwaliteit van de encyclopedie te verbeteren: dat is waar overleg voor dient, niet? Ik ga voorlopig maar in Spanje sjabloontjes plakken :-P See you too around. :-) Zanaq 21:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Hee Zanaq! Vergeef me dat ik hier even kom inbreken, ik vond je net toevallig via Limowrecheds Tom Ordelman. De zaken zijn bijzonder naar verlopen, waarschijnlijk niet in de laatste plaats omdat verontwaardiging besmettelijk (het rode-lap-op-een-stier-principe) is. Daarnaast, wrong place, wrong time, wellicht.. Troost je echter met de gedachte dat er ook genoeg mensen zijn die je niet verketteren vanwege een toch-wel-iets-te-provocatieve manier om iets aan de kaak te stellen. {Sjabplak}-ze :) Xyboi 18:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Je bent altijd welkom om hier in te breken, of in spanje. Ik was net het controleren van new pages aan het uitproberen en vond dat hier op :en niet zo'n fantastische ervaring: dan is het in spanje nog leuker. Ik had maar even {prod} geplakt, Limo was me net voor met {npa2}.

Ik heb de diverse "steun"betuigingen zeer gewaardeerd. Die laatste van Torero was weer goed over de top. Het is zéér naar verlopen, met diverse blokkerenswaardige opmerkingen over en weer, met als absoluut dieptepunt de blokkade van Peter Boelens om een absoluut onblokkerenswaardige bijdrage.

Gelukkig is een groot aantal gebruikers immuun voor zulke besmetting en gevoelig voor context. Succes! — Zanaq (?) 18:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

84.194.99.177

Would appreciate if you could let me know what he posted in Dutch so I can decide on an appropriate block. Thanks -- Samir धर्म 07:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Answered on your talk page. Thank you. — Zanaq (?) 08:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Bedankt voor je ingreep! SietskeEN 09:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. These comments are disturbing. Looks like Mark has blocked him for 3 months. Feel free to send me a message if any harrassment recurs from a puppet in the interim. -- Samir धर्म 07:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I will keep your offer in mind. Thanks. — Zanaq (?) 09:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Beste Zanaq, ook van mij nog een verlaat maar gemeend dankwoord voor het reverten van mijn DP. Wat een trieste toestand. Hopelijk met jou alles goed? Vriendelijke groeten, Bessel Dekker 19:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)To English-language readers: apologies for posting this in Dutch, in gratitude to Zanaq for reverting exceptionally foul language on my Discussion Page. Bessel Dekker 19:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Graag gedaan. Denk je trouwens niet dat lettertypen voornamelijk ontelbaar zijn? — Zanaq (?) 09:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Leuk je hier tegen te komen, het wordt net een huiskamer van Nederlandstalige Wikipedianen op jouw OP. Hopelijk zien de 6 maanden block stemmers wat je nu weer gedaan hebt, zodat ze hun stem daar verwijderen en jij snel weer terugkomt. Sorry for a small edit in Dutch. Best regards Sake-simon 21:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Ik denk niet dat mijn blokkade nog ongedaan gemaakt zal worden. Ik ben nu hier en in Spanje en over twee maandjes kom ik jullie weer verblijden op :nl. Thanks. — Zanaq (?) 09:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Salting scam in mining

Re:

• My adding the salting scam to Confidence trick's "See also section" (diff)

  Summary: See also - added Salting (item about the salting scam)

• Your immediately reverting it (diff)

  Summary: please: a) refer to the correct page b) not realy a "scam" scam)

a) As evident from the Salting dab/article, there is currently no dedicated article for the salting scam, thus no better link to send to.

b) That's why it is added to the "See also" section and not to the article's main body, just like Spamming.

Your reversion seems thus completely unjustified, and I am putting the item back in "See also".

-- 62.147.37.95 19:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

ok, I missed the salting (mining) bit, apologies. — Zanaq (?) 16:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikimedia Conferentie in Nederland!

Beste,

Er wordt een Wikimedia Conferentie in Nederland georganiseerd. Er is al een voorlopig programma met lezingen van Jimbo Wales, Kurt Jansson en vele anderen, workshops en discussies over bijvoorbeeld de Easy Timeline, pywikipediabot en de toekomst van wiki[p/m]edia. Het zou me leuk lijken als je ook kon komen! Meld je snel aan op de inschrijfpagina, want we moeten snel weten hoeveel mensen er ongeveer komen! Stuur deze uitnodiging vooral ook door naar anderen die geïnteresseerd zouden kunnen zijn door {{subst:user:Effeietsanders/wcn}}~~~~ op hun overlegpagina's te plakken. Hoe meer zielen, hoe meer vreugd. Met vriendelijke groet,
effeietsanders 22:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Huh?

"Interiotcolorfetisjist"? Dat woord bestaat niet, in geen enkele taal. O zo. Vriendelijke groetjes, Bessel Dekker 17:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC) Tja, als je het nu nog met -sh- schreef...

P.S. Ik lees pas nu hierboven Denk je trouwens niet dat lettertypen voornamelijk ontelbaar zijn? Wat bedoel je? Ik snap er niets van en voel me nog dommer dan anders! Bessel Dekker 17:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Met de sh van shabbat was het inderdaad beter geweest: ik dacht niet voldoende na, maar Interiot kent natuurlijk het oernederlandse woord interiotkleurtjesfetisjisme niet. Ik vraag me af wat duitsers tegen vrolijke kleurtjes hebben.

De telbaarheid ging over de discussie die woedde over lidwoorden bij lettertypen, en waar ik me om de bekende reden niet direct in kon mengen. de Times Roman, de Helvetica. Volgens mij komt het lidwoord er slechts in specifieke situaties bij, zoals bij water en wijn. — Zanaq (?) 18:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Vrolijke kleurtjes geven maar een misleidende indruk dat het leven opwekkend zou zijn. Daarentegen is het natuurlijk, zoals jeder weet, iets om zwaar aan te tillen.

Je had dus ook de sch- van Schabbat kunnen gebruiken.

Bij lettertypen doet iedereen stellig van alles. Uit de mond van uitgevers en typografen heb ik echter nog nooit de lidwoordloze vorm gehoord, en als ik die desondanks zou gaan gebruiken, zou ik mij in die kringen in één klap belachelijk maken; dus dat doe ik maar niet, zeker niet in één klap! "Deze tekst is gezet uit Monotype Bembo?" Brrrr, ondenkbaar; Venus van Milo-Nederlands. Bessel Dekker 18:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Een Monotype Bimbo. Ik neem aan dat drukkers een specifieke Bimbo in gedachten hebben, in tegenstelling tot een andere: Dé Bimbo. Hoor je ook wel eens een meervoudsvorm uit hun mond? Zoals in bijvoorbeeld De Bimbo's doen het goed dit jaar, vorig jaar waren de Romannen niet aan te slepen.. achter het woord uit hoort volgens mij inderdaad een de, maar achter het woord in dat alleen amateurs kennelijk gebruiken, hoeft dat toch niet? Buenos noches. — Zanaq (?) 20:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Met amateurs en Bimbo's houd ik mij niet op, en het lettertype Roman bestaat niet. Dat denken nu weer alleen die amateurs. Iedere familie heeft een romein. Nou ja, hopelijk heb je toch goed geslapen. Bessel Dekker 22:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Reeds twee keer, dank je. Bembo schijnt toch een van de romannen te zijn, hoewel inderdaad strict genomen geen lettertype, maar - hoe heet dat? - een variant. Zit het ding trouwens in het publieke domein (oorspronkelijk een 16e eeuws type, schijnt het) of moet je die knakkers betalen? Excuses voor de late reactie: ik zit vnl. in spanje.

Bembo is een familie waarvan de romein een ondersoort is, niet andersom. Bijna iedere familie heeft wel een romein, en een cursief, etc. Betalen? Denk ik niet. Er zijn rommetjes in de handel met duizenden lettertypes, bijna gratis. Er zijn er natuurlijk ook van heel veel sites te downloaden. Of dat voor de Bembo ook geldt, weet ik niet, maar wie zou er in 's hemelsnaam rechten op kunnen hebben? Geen idee eigenlijk. Maar om heel precies te zijn: je link hierboven gaat niet over de Bembo, doch over de Monotype Bembo. Er bestaat misschien ook wel een Linotype Bembo, en tja, of dáár nu weer rechten op bestaan? Groetjes, Bessel Dekker 02:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Mmmmm. nu je het zegt. die hierarchie klinkt wel logisch: weer wat geleerd, bedankt. :-) Toch even voor de grap monotype en linotype gelezen: ik hoop dat ik weer bij ben. Bembo zou dus de verkeerde titel hebben, ware het niet dat monotype kennelijk erin geslaagd is het als trademark te deponeren. Dat klinkt bijna net zo verkeerd als het copyright op Happy Birthday to You. Geniet van je avond. :-) — Zanaq (?) 13:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

atheism

(edit conflict) I assume this is about this "fact". In fact this phrase does not seem to assert that there is no truth. It explains the logical consequence if there would be (as exemplified by when) no such thing. This may be related to Counterfactual definiteness. I also agree to better make both statements disappear: best to avoid any conclusions and examples. Too bad for dumb people, but we're writing an encyclopedia and not philosophy for dummies. (You may sign your comments with four tildes (Somerset219 23:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)), and use : to indent)— Zanaq (?) 23:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Counterfactual definiteness, this has nothing to do with the statment made. Esp. considering this is philisophical. Please try to be civil, especially when you were not a main contributor in the debate. If you agree to make both statements "disappear" then give an example of why. We're here to better the article, not "gang-up" on people. thanks! Somerset219 23:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I think everything you describe is an element of my post. I don't see no ganging up. It was a new contribution on a talk page, seemingly a new "debate" which seemed to have no "main contributor" (yet). I wonder where you see any uncivilized attack. Did I call anyone dumb? I hope not and I don't think so: it is a reference to your own forming an opinion for someone, which is indeed to be avoided, as are conclusions and examples. I see now that there was/is some edit war going on and the debate has progressed: I did not notice, and didn't mean to step into an ongoing issue. Apologies. — Zanaq (?) 00:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Andy Pratt

Dear Zanaq, Thanks again for your advice on lay-out, and of course your initial lecture on non-encyclopedic language. How unfortunate that you've been blocked from Wikipedia (nl)- keep up the good work anyway and remember, "Hoge bomen vangen veel wind"... as a much appreciated editor-in-exile, could you please assess the English/Dutch article about Andy Pratt or leave a message on the discussion page? The maestro himself sent me an encouraging email last week. Best wishes, Frank Landsman 01:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC) (Alle Hens aan Dek [Wiki-nl])

I wanna give you a prize

Hi, I'm Javitomad, a Spanish user of English wikipedia.

I've seen you've created some articles about Spain.

Because of that, I want to give you a Barnstar, the Spanish Barnstar.

• 
  I, Javitomad, give you this Barnstar for contributing for a better Spanish-English Wikipedia. Frebruary 2nd, 2007.

(copy and paste this in your user page.)

Faithfully. Javitomad (...tell me...)

Arrow's impossibility theorem

Just so you know, I reverted your last edit to Arrow's impossibility theorem, as I believe it was based on a misinterpretation of WP:ASR. I also started a discussion about it at Wikipedia talk:Avoid self-references#References in an article to itself, just to make sure I'm on the same page as everyone else; feel free to drop by and put in your two cents. Thanks! —Ruakh_TALK 21:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I just posted my remark and reverted again, this time citing some pov. Also in scientific papers and non fiction books, I hate it when writers say things like In the next chapters we will see that. Just cut the crap and say it can be shown that.... When you hint at something, readers will expect it to develop, and when it doesn't it's clearly a bad text. Regards. — Zanaq (?) 08:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Benjamin Sisko

I just did a google search for Sisko and your artists impression image came up, I just thought it was so awesome I have to ask if you've done any others, especially Picard? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.81.89 (talk) 11:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Nomination of Darwi Odrade for deletion

The article Darwi Odrade is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darwi Odrade until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Midas02

I just wanted you to know (if you're still active) that this user has for some reason attempted to create a subpage of your user-page: see Gebruiker:Zanaq/Zeusmode/qtemplate2.js. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 01:09, 21 July 2014 (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) 12:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Zanaq. 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)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Zanaq. 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)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Zanaq. 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)