User talk:Grrahnbahr

Welcome...

Hello, Grrahnbahr, 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:

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:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Paxse 13:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paxse 13:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lead(II) nitrate, back to FA?

Hi, Grrahnbahr, I've copy-edited the lead(II) nitrate article from the Chemicals wikiproject, after it was recentely demoted from its FA-status. In this, you contributed to the voting process. Would you please be so kind as to provide feedback in its now running FA re-candidacy? Wim van Dorst (talk) 19:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Honour Based Violence Awareness network

Hi Grrahnbahr, the above mentioned network/ resource centre has just started in febutaty, therefore there are not so many online reference available which could be labelled as neutral, most of the references are in fact " press release" which has been issued by many sites. Thereofre I chose 2 references which were neutral. One article was on the page of Norwegian Human rights site, written by a very well known women rights activist named Hege Storhaug. She wrote few lines in norwegian and the rest is the press release. The other reference, I used was, an article by Denise Turner ( don't know who she is, since I live in Norway). I think these two references cover the "reliable, secondary sources " condition. I would add more references when those would be available. I think this initiative is an international one, having people like Asma Jahangir, John Austin, and some other to support this initiative. Therefore, I believ that this article needs to be untagged. But if you think this is not possible, then just delete it rather than redirecting it. In future, someone else might write an article about HVBA, when this has gained more ground. Regards.Jogibaba (talk) 00:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of the reasons for adding the tag, was to make the community aware of the poor reference cover. Wikipedia is not a place for announcing new projects, but already well-known is may relevant for the project if they fullfill the criterias for the topic. The article is nominated for delition at wikipedia in Norwegian. I am not sure if the project is relevant, and that wil not be my decition alone. I suggest to leave the tag until a etablished user decides to remove the tag or keep it. Grrahnbahr (talk) 01:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for deletion on Norwegian Wikipedia is that it is too new initiative ( feburary), they wouldn't have any problem if this was writte a little later. They know who is Hege Storhaug who wrote an article about it and they also aware of Unni Wikan who is also supporting this initiative. But, no hard feeling here, if this get deleted, there could be written about it at a later stage when there are more references available. Thanks for the reply.Jogibaba (talk) 01:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 14:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Attia Bano Qamar

The discussion is moved to the talkpage where it belongs. Grrahnbahr (talk) 18:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where is it???? I could not find it!--Sonisona 20:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)--Sonisona 20:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Attia Bano Qamar Grrahnbahr (talk) 20:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

spelling

Hey you are giving very good input to the discussions in JWs related article. I understand that you are a non-English speaker and we are on the same boat. But please check the spelling of the comments you write on talk pages. Some of them appear weird. Its easy if you right click on red underlines and go through the spelling suggestions given by the text editor. Thanks--Fazilfazil (talk) 15:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your sentence making is superior than me. Seems like you use 'c' instead if 's' in most places. May be because of you native language influence. But I just wanted to mention the following frequent mistakes you make.

concidered is wrong --> considered is correct

unaccurate is virtually never used --> inaccurate is correct

concensus is wrong --> consensus is correct

expertice is wrong --> expertise is correct

concider is wrong --> consider is correct

Please don't take in bad faith. Just wanted to note it. Happy editing --Fazilfazil (talk) 17:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can we add appairs --> appears to the list? :) --Jeffro77 (talk) 02:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to add that :)--Fazilfazil (talk) 04:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

witch = heks; which = som :) --Jeffro77 (talk) 08:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll try to remember. I can't check every singel word :( Grrahnbahr (talk) 08:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'm only mentioning incorrect spellings that I've noticed come up often, just to be helpful. (Other editors whose first language is not English have occasionally asked me to do so in the past.) If you prefer I don't, that's fine too.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify

You have falsely claimed at ANI that BlackCab and I have colluded, and you've further claimed that "at least once recently have invite the other to comment in certain discussion for support (the word "support" wasn't mentioned, but it was pretty clear what the invitation was about)." What are you referring to??--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it looks like I was wrong. You asked BlackCab to provide a quote, and I understood it like a comment (support) for a specific case, but it could be a quote from a questioned source. In the discussion about AuthorityTam, I did also specific say "I hope you will forgive me if I'm totally wrong", as I am open for my suggestion about your motives was wrong. I obviously dont see "colluding" as offencive as you and BlackCab, as it could be cooperating on a higher level, like supporting persons rather than cases, or supporting a POV in the case. BlackCab admit s/he is on the other side of "the fence" regarded POV in JW-related articles, and also admited a common view as you in most cases. I hope you accept the answear, it is no personal at all. I do really want the articles to present a correct POV in this case as in other (I've started several hundred articles in another language, and several FA, and is active in deletion-debates and policybuilding at the actual wikipedia), and sorting out POVs of other users is a part of it. Grrahnbahr (talk) 13:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining. I would appreciate it if you strike out the remark at the ANI, but as it's relatively mild, I won't consider it the end of the world if you don't.

For the record, I do not consider myself to be 'anti-JW' as such. As an atheist, I do not consider JW beliefs to be more irrational than the beliefs of any other religion. I have JW relatives, so it is the religion about which I know the most.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well. That is good to know. So I could expect your future comments from an atheist point of view rather than an anti-JW. In my view its not good to attack against any religion or personal belief. Each one have their choice which others respect though they may have different personally--Fazilfazil (talk) 04:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can 'expect' whatever you like. If you imagine an 'atheist bias' in my changes to article content, present the specific edit in question. I could, on the same basis, 'expect' you to comment from a JW point of view. It would be an error to assume that a pro-JW bias is any better than an anti-JW bias, an atheist bias, or any other bias.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to stop this discussion for now, if you want to continue the chat, please do it on your own talk page. Grrahnbahr (talk) 14:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AuthorityTam

User:AuthorityTam has resumed editing today and has immediately made a misleading claim about me. I have therefore re-opened the previous unresolved ANI where various proposals were suggested. I am advising you because you were substantially involved in the previous discussion. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Resuming_AuthorityTam_ANI.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute Resolution IRC office hours.

Hello there. As you expressed interest in hearing updates to my research in the dispute resolution survey that was done a few months ago, I just wanted to let you know that I am hosting an IRC office hours session this coming Saturday, 28th July at 19:00 UTC (approximately 12 hours from now). This will be located in the #wikimedia-office ^connect IRC channel - if you have not participated in an IRC discussion before you can connect to IRC here.

Regards, User:Szhang (WMF) (talk) 07:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata and Interwiki links

You are receiving this as you have recently added an interwiki link to a page!

Wikidata has been deployed to the English Wikipedia. Wikidata manages interwiki links on a separate project on pages such as this. This means that on Wikipedia articles there is now a language bar on the left hand side of your screen where you can edit and add links rather than adding them into the articles themselves.

If you have any questions regarding Wikidata please use the talk page Wikipedia talk:Wikidata.

·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 22:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moral contamination

Moved discussion to Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses#Moral contamination

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Jehovah's Witnesses".

Guide for participants

If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form.

What this noticeboard is:

It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction.

What this noticeboard is not:

It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums.
It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN.
It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy.

Things to remember:

Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.
Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page.
Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~".
If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage.

Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! --Guy Macon (talk) 21:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neither/nor

Re your edit: I would say would be a conclusion not well founded in the source, and is neither supported... (etc) In your edit summary you asked about the usage of neither and nor. Neither is usually used to introduce a list of two or more negated terms. Nor is used as a connective for additional negated terms. Because nor is a connective, it is not used with and. So your sentence would become: I would say [something] would be a conclusion neither well founded in the source, nor supported... I hope that helps. :) --Jeffro77 (talk) 18:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks. Grrahnbahr (talk) 01:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I discussion

I assume you have AN/I on your watchlist, but as it is edited so often you might easily have missed this edit of mine which is asking you if you'd make a specific request about the thread. Many thanks, Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 18:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I was working, but have replied now. Grrahnbahr (talk) 23:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to reply to this request of yours. It's a bit unclear what you're asking for but it doesn't seem to be a valid task for an admin. We have very few extra powers and those we have are very blunt: block editors, protect or unprotect pages etc. Making a judgement about a source is not an administrator function. Meanwhile, I've asked you to respond further on the AN/I thread as you will see if you go and have a look. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The 'request' by Grrahnbahr would constitute WP:OUTING, which would indeed be a violation of policy. He no doubt refers to informal articles I have written outside of Wikipedia examining a particular JW doctrine in light of secular evidence. I have never cited that work inside Wikipedia.

The fact that I am an atheist means I obviously do not believe the doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses. However, it is not a requirement to believe what a group teaches in order to objectively write about the group (though most of my work on the JW WikiProject relates to copyediting and factchecking of existing content rather than providing new content from scratch).--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for asking was to avoiding outing. I won't confirm or dismiss what you're believing in this matter. If information or link are sent in a private message, and not as links in a discussion forum, it may not be regarded as outing. AN/I is may not the right way anyway, as it is about COI rather than conduct. It may could have proven I'm not a lier, but since you're regular accusing other editors for lying, I don't see it should add some great value anymore. Grrahnbahr (talk) 11:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really clear what for you would not constitute bias or conflict of interest for editing JW articles. Are you suggesting that only members of the group should edit such articles? Clearly that would result in rampant POV problems. You don't seem to understand that I (and any other editor) am allowed to disagree with the beliefs of any particular group. If you are going to accuse me of biased editing on Wikipedia, you need to back your accusations with proof that I have shown bias on Wikipedia.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:04, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like more editors to edit on JW-related articles before they're hit by the train. It is like 3-5 editors participating over time. COI is only when interest outside wikipedia becomes more important than editing the wikipedia itself. In an AN/I it is legal to raise accusation like those mentioned, and I offered to give an admin access to information that could be informative in such matter. As I said, it is more likely to be of interest to a COI board than in an AN/I discussion. If you don't have any such outside interests, then I wouldn't worry to much about it. Grrahnbahr (talk) 12:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, stop. You're winding each other up yet again. I've closed the AN/I discussion and I expect you two to find a way of working together, rather than against each other. Stop this to-and-fro which cannot lead anywhere good; concentrate on the article and how you can square the circle of your differences. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mauthausen-Gusen

I'm back :) //Halibu tt 10:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christophe Lallet

I have declined your PROD on this article because it has previously been dePRODded. You will have to take it to WP:AFD if you think it should be deleted. I'm not sure that would be worthwhile, because he will qualify under WP:NFOOTY as soon as he has actually played for his new club, but up to you. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for dropping by the message. Grrahnbahr (talk) 20:45, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

edit

hello. I have to be frank with you. There is such a thing as just NOMINAL or general "Christianity", that's not necessarily considered totally "Biblical" per se. And it was just a minor elaboration, that did NOT need to be removed. I didn't appreciate you disrespecting my valid good-faith elaboration, simply because you didn't like it, with the front of excuse of "redundant". You're wrong with that. It was not redundant necessarily, but just more clear...as not all "Christianity" is necessarily called or considered completely "Biblical".... this is a wiki....you don't own the article...don't remove valid modifications for "I don't like" reasons. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 23:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had no intention to be disrespecting to your elaboration. I've added a notice on the articles talk page, as I still think the descriptive adjective is redundant here, but I have no strong feelings either way about the use of the word, so won't revert it by my self unless a consensus to do so is reached. Being reverted is in the nature of editing at wikipedia, so please don't take it personal when it is done. A revert is most of the time also done in good faith. Grrahnbahr (talk) 00:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for your time and response. I commented back on the article talk right here. Gabby Merger (talk) 01:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

I noticed that you helped delete my article on Fatstone.TV saying you haven't seen it? Or didn't see any of the links i provided. It is true that the channel is young, but all the other information in there is also true. The channel is available on all the norwegian cable networks, which i also linked in the article. I don't think it is fair to delete a TV channel from Wikipedia just because you haven't heard about it.

Here are a few links that hopefully will change your mind. http://www.ericsson.com/news/130715-Fatstone-signs-broadcast-services-contract-with-ericsson_244129227_c https://kabel.canaldigital.no/Aktuelt/Fatstone/ http://www.get.no/produkter/tv/kanalvelger/fatstone http://www.an.no/nyheter/article6903690.ece

However if there is anything I can do about the language to make it better, I am open to suggestions. MNordahlc (talk) 12:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the discussion wheather to keep the article or not, was kept at the proper page for such a discussion. I made clear I not was an academic or an expert on media and enterteinment, but my support for deletion of the article was based on appearently lack of relevance for a mainstream encyclopedia, and a promoting wording in the article. I did not claim the channel didn't existed, only it was pretty uknkown, also where I do live, nearby Lofoten. I have no authority to redo the deletion, but I am sure there are processes for such actions if you want to retry the deletion. I suggest to try contacting User:Joe_Decker, who deleted the page, if you would like to give it another try to keep the article. Grrahnbahr (talk) 20:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I spotted this, MNordahlc, I'd be glad to talk to you more about what we'd want to see for re-creation of the article. The an.no article is probably the kind of source that is most like what we'd be looking for, in that it is published by an arm's length source with its own editorial staff (newspaper, magazine, book, etc.) and talks in depth about the channel. A couple other of the links look like reprinted press releases (for example, [1]), which doesn't work for our inclusion policies.

While we here at Wikipedia talk about our inclusion critieria as "notability" and often speak of it as a question of whether a subject "deserves" an article, I think it's easier to think of it in a different way. The intent, I feel, of our inclusion critieria is to make sure that there is enough in the way of demonstrably unbiased, thoughtful coverage of the topic that it would be possible to write a neutral and signficant article based only on that coverage. That can be hard to do for new subjects, but for nearly any subject, eventually the sources come along.

People in the deletion discussion also felt there was an issue with promotional wording, if there's enough coverage of a topic, it's almost always possible to solve any such promotionality problems by simple rewriting. So, in terms of getting a new article on Wikipedia about the subject, the real hurdle is finding additional sources in newspapers, magazines, and such that discuss the channel in depth.

Anyway, I'd be happy to continue this discussion on my talk page if you have questions I can answer. (And, btw, Lofoten is very beautiful!) --j⚛e decker ^talk 21:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April 2014

I noticed that you have posted comments in a language other than English. When on the English-language Wikipedia, please always use English, no matter to whom you address your comments. This is so that comments may be comprehensible to the community at large. If the use of another language is unavoidable, please provide a translation of the comments. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Hello: you can help us out and use Google Translate. Just add the English along side the non-English comment. [2]. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 21:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for notifying. I've left a translation in English at Reckless' userpage. I hope you find it to be of interest. Grrahnbahr (talk) 22:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014

Hello, Grrahnbahr. You have new messages at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses' handling of child sex abuse.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi @Grrahnbahr: If you are able to respond to the discussion at the bottom of the Talk section of the JW article that would be appreciated. I've been trying for several days to try and get more information about a reference you made to a Norwegian study. I'd like to know if the reference only applies to JWs in Norway, and what were the parameters of the study. I feel that the sentence in question at the moment is misleading. TruthSeekerJC (talk) 02:13, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Expectation of baptism

Moved to article Talk

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Your latest edit at Jehovah's Witnesses regarding the expectation that "Bible studies" will take the step to baptism is going over old ground. You, I and other editors discussed this previously; that discussion (resolved I thought) is in archive 60 on the JW talk page. BlackCab (TALK) 12:30, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can not see any concensus reached in the archive. Grrahnbahr (talk) 12:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-worded the sentence to be more consistent with the cited source. As it is nearly verbatim per the source, you should be happy with the change.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It sure is closer to the wording, so thanks. Grrahnbahr (talk) 15:08, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The edit in fact obscures the key fact that JWs conduct so-called Bible studies for a specific purpose: to gain recruits. The KM article (whose citation is now rather redundant thanks to Jeffro's last edit) specifically states that within a short time the JW is expected to steer the person to baptism; if the person shows no such inclination (eg is fascinated by the novel JW doctrine in an academic sense but has no wish to commit themselves to the self-assumed authority of the religion's leaders with all their legislative and judicial powers) the study course is to be terminated. The current wording suggests a measure of altruism in the home Bible study procedure. To be accurate it must include the fact that it is being done for a specific purpose -- a purpose never explained at the outset to the potential convert. (I joined the religion via that method and spent much of the next two decades engaged in similarly surreptitious behavior). Anyway ... I'm relaxing on a beach at the moment and with only an iPhone not well equipped for extensive editing tasks, but will return to this when I'm back home. BlackCab (TALK) 21:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is a distinct difference between expectations toward a Bible Study leader, as listed in the km article, and expectations toward the 'study object', and a distinct difference between a stated goal/aim for the Bible study teacher, and expectations toward the 'study object'. It is a POV-issue, as I can see it appairs an interest of making a claim for being recieving a Bible Study, or information, is catching the 'study object' into the religion, as "is expected [...] to become baptized as a member of the group" indicate a more than a light pressure for a 'study object' to become a JW. It is may fair to make a claim of a certain pressure against children of members of the religion, but I can't see the latter should be a very different practice from a majority of other conservative Christian groups. The km ref, at least as it was quoted, was not about "completed studies", only about continuing or terminating a study, obvious in a matter of efficience. Grrahnbahr (talk) 22:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I understand very little of what you said there. Despite what you seem to be suggesting, the KM article was not about the study conductor being better at conducting the study: as the question preceding the article makes clear, it is solely about how long a study should go on before being deemed unfruitful and then abandoned. BlackCab (TALK) 22:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the previous wording was certainly more honest about the intention of the 'study' program. I don't agree that it can only be "accurate" by stating a certain fact, though it may be incomplete. Apparently, Grrahnbahr is either ignorant of, or being misleading about, the actual purpose of the JW 'study' process, as the expectation certainly is that those who complete the 'study' be baptised as JWs. Recruiting new members is the entire purpose of the 'study',and the entire 18th chapter of their current 'study' publication is devoted to that expectation (and similar material was present in all their previous 'study' publications). The Our Kingdom Ministry piece certainly indicates that 'Bible studies' that are unlikely to result in new recruits are 'terminated' (at which time any social contact with the JW 'teacher' is also generally terminated), and this certainly supports that expectation that those who complete the study also join the religion. Perhaps Grrahnbahr is confused because that article also indicates a separate expectation on the 'teacher' to achieve that goal.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Per your request, this redundant notice is to advise you that you have been mentioned in a discussion that you already know about and were already involved in, in regard to your behaviour in that discussion and your past behaviour mentioned in that discussion, all of which you're already aware.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Grrahnbahr. 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]