User talk:Gjirokastra15

Mistake in The Allied Forces Page

The unit "21st Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Skanderbeg (1st Albanian)" was not created in the Republic of Albania, but in Yugoslavia. Eventhough, the Kosovo province was populated by Albanians it was not part of the Republic of Albania. Please either remove it, or move it to section "Yugoslavia" as Yugoslavian collaboration with the Axis. This unit was not composed of Albanian citizens had no relation with the state of Albania and its government.

LupinoJacky (talk) 21:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edit, but the description is still wrong:

"During this time, the Italian backed puppet government, sided with the Italians and Germans and supported their war effort. Albanian forces fighting on the Axis side were, among others and irregulars from Skanderbeg (military unit) which fought under Italian command in the Uprising in Montenegro, the first one was fighting under German command in Yugoslavia.[59]"

The correct version would be to change this sentence:

"Albanian forces fighting on the Axis side were, among others and irregulars from Skanderbeg (military unit) which fought under Italian command in the Uprising in Montenegro, the first one was fighting under German command in Yugoslavia.[59]"

With this correct formulation: A unit of the 14-th Italian Army Corps named Skanderbeg (military unit) was composed of Albanian individuals and participated in the Uprising in Montenegro.

LupinoJacky (talk) 22:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance is needed on a Topic

Albania is mistakenly listed as an Axis force instead of an Ally. As a knowledgeable person can you intervene? -- I created a talk topic under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Allies_of_World_War_II#Editors_Needed_On_Clarifying_the_Albanian_Case -- The facts are clearly there, but I cannot edit it and there need to be more people involved to convince a Editor which does not know the basics of WW2 in the Balkans. --

Editors Needed On Clarifying the Albanian Case[edit] Dear Editors, -- Please let me kindly invite you to investigate and clarify the status of Albania as an Allied force. Since there is an editor below who unilaterally refuse even considering the provided facts and historical sources, then I invite a quorum of other editors (preferable with knowledge on WW2 history and Balkans) to investigate the case. Best Regards LupinoJacky (talk) 14:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC) Albania was an Ally state, the book "Enciclopedia of World War II, Volume 1, Section "Treaties Ending the War", Page 824, ISBN-10: 0816060223, ISBN-13: 978-0816060221" acknowledges that Albania signed the peace treaties in the end of WW2 as an Allied country. Citing page 824: "The first peace treaty concluded between the Allies and a former Axis nation was with Italy. It was signed in Paris on February, 10, 1947, by representatives from Albania, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Czechoslovakia, Ethipia, France, Great Britain, Greece, India, Iraq, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zeeland, Pakistan, Poland, Slovak Republic, South Africa, the Soviet Union, the United States, Yugoslavia, and Italy." (weblink https://books.google.de/books?id=LbWFgjW6KX8C&pg=PA824&lpg=PA824&dq=WW2+allied+and+associated+powers+albania&source=bl&ots=ehfHi5vpFh&sig=IZ3bXd3OKFo71jBU3Abay6tt6ao&hl=en&sa=X&ei=h1bSVLe5OoT0UKCdgPAH&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=WW2%20allied%20and%20associated%20powers%20albania&f=false) Unless there is any source showing the contrary, please add Albania to this page, clarifying 1) the fighting contribution of the Albanian National Liberation Front and 2) the fighting contribution of the government in exile by King Zog in terms of 2.1. resisting the Italian invasion, 2.2. resisting throughout WW2 through the Legality Movement forces. LupinoJacky (talk) 17:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC) LupinoJacky (talk) 21:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gjirokastra15, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!

The

Adventure

Hi Gjirokastra15!! You're invited: learn how to edit Wikipedia in under an hour. Hope to see you there! Play The Wikipedia Adventure This message was delivered by HostBot (talk) 17:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Albania

What do you mean that "There is nothing controversial nor anything was removed."? Examine the diff. You removed 479 bytes which included a citation. Removal of citations deserve an explanation. See Wikipedia:Content removal. Jim1138 (talk) 18:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously , what is so hard to understand ?

The sentence from > Albania has been a potential candidate for accession to the European Union since January 2003 and it formally applied for EU membership on 28 April 2009. The Commission granted it candidate status on June 24, 2014. <

was re written like this > It is also an official candidate for membership in the European Union. <

It is the exact same thing . There is a detailed thread about the Accession of Albania to the Eu , which is also linked in that sentence . The citation while correct is out dated , because Albania was granted the European candidate status some weeks ago , thus the lead sentence was re written exactly as it is written in the lead for other official candidate countries in EU ( like Serbia , Montenegro etc. ) . Gjirokastra15 (talk) 18:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You keep stating "it is the same thing", but you neglect to mention why you deleted the reference. The reference seems perfectly pertinent to the information, so it should stay there. Which I just restored with your current sentence structure btw. If you want to delete the reference, please state WHY in talk:Albania per wp:BRD. Jim1138 (talk) 19:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You revert

Albanian national census states that 16.99% are Christians not 17.02%. Correcting estimates does not mean religious propaganda. Furthermore, your edit history shows that you are probably a sock of user malbin.Mingling2 (talk) 07:08, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No the Albanian national census does not state that . The 16.99% is for the catholic,orthodox,and ungjillor ( protestant ) community . But there is also a 0.30 % jehova witnesses and other christian communities , that you ignore and if you would take the time to go and see the detailed instat census you would see it ( although i doubt about you being an albanian )

Now please go and continue your religious indifanda somewhere else . From my limited knowledge of Wikipedia your edit warring with 4 different editors and your history have you very close on the verge of getting banned .

In addition i have absolutely no idea of who Malbin is . This is my last warning to you before reporting you for 3RR .Gjirokastra15 (talk) 11:23, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Albanian Air Force

Hello. The official web site you added to the article doesn't include any numbers at all, so until you can provide a reliable source, with numbers, we'll keep the lower numbers. Thomas.W ^talk 20:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources will be found then , and numbers will be put accordingly . Gjirokastra15 (talk) 20:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your behavior at DRN

It is very impolite [1] and against procedure to post a wall of text at my summary at DRN. The DRN page is not a talkpage like Talk:Himara. You should wait for the volunteer to respond. Then there will be a venue where you can write as much as you want. Athenean (talk) 05:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DR

I linked you to that on ANI. You took it to WP:DRN. Which that of course is fine but your response made it seem as it was suggested that you take it to DRN specifically. This of course made me wonder if you were aware that there are other things set up for dispute resolution. The other Noticeboards such as wp:BLPN, WP:RSN, and a few others are also for dispute resolution of content related matters. There is also wp:RFC and wp:3PO.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 18:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information . The truth is that i am slowly beginning to understand how this process works , given that , it is the first time that i have to ask for a meditation to a dispute . (Un)fortunately i took it to WP:DRN , it seemed appropriate to me , but if a solution fails to materialize there , i am thinking about filling for a WP:RFM . It just seems to me such a clear case of wp:idontlikeit , and an assumption from their behalf of `` if i have the number of revisions then i can write whatever i want based on nationalistic sentiments``. The information that you provided will be more than helpful for future reference as well .Gjirokastra15 (talk) 19:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Saranda". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 10 December 2014.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 03:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Saranda, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Link piping

Hey, I noticed you reverted a simple copyedit of mine at Rugova Canyon. Is there a particular reason for the link piping? If you'd like to change the names of those articles, you'll have to go through the RM process. And please think twice before making nationalism accusations; I have no connection to Serbia or Kosovo. --Local hero ^talk 18:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that the (main) name of that article was Peja , but to my surprise ( later) i saw that it was not , thus i will go though the RM process for the article instead . Your edit was correct , and my accusation towards you was unmerited . Gjirokastra15 (talk) 01:33, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for my revert at Visoki Dečani was because Kosovo is not recognised as the state party of this site by UNESCO. Therefore, you should consider reverting yourself. --Local hero ^talk 22:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Local hero: That source is from 2004 , prior to Kosova's declaration of independence thus it is absolutely normal that Unesco -at that time- was not recognizing kosovo as a state . I did write it in the talk page as well . However let us assume good faith for each other , i am sure that you had not noticed that . Gjirokastra15 (talk) 22:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance needed on the status of Albania as an Axis State

In the Axis page an edit is needed to correct a historic mistake, but the page is protected and I cannot do it. Would be happy if you could edit it. I entered the clarification on the talk page.

--- Albania was an Ally state, the entry Albania under the Wiki page Allies of WW2 is well supported by historic sources (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allies_of_World_War_II)

Therefore, since Albania was accepted officially as an Ally country (historic sources in the page above), it cannot be double-listed as an Axis country, thus should be removed.

The link Albania under German control does reflect to a puppet government. The definition of Axis states in the page explicitly clarifies that "The Axis powers, also known as the Axis, were the nations that fought in the Second World War against the Allied forces.". There is no historic reference to indicate any battle where an army of this government fought against the Allies. By the aforementioned definition of Axis state, this puppet government does not qualify for this page and should be removed.

The puppet pro-Axis government is already listed under the appropriate Wiki page ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_puppet_states ). That section is duplicated here and should be removed as 'not relevant'.

---

LupinoJacky (talk) 23:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@LupinoJacky: I will help you with that tomorrow :) . I will edit it for you . In the meantime try to make 10 useful edits in not protected pages and within some days you will be a confirmed user and thus be able to edit semi protected pages . Gjirokastra15 (talk) 23:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry

Hi Gjiro. I am sorry for my edit-summary where I implied I was going to report you at 3RRN. In the heat of the moment it seemed like a good idea to me at the time. But I have now come to realise that in good conscience I would do no such thing to you due to the fact that I respect you, despite our disagreements from time to time. I would not be honest to myself if I let this edit-summary stand without explaining this to you. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^λόγοςπράξις 05:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw it , :@Dr.K: . I understand that this is a sensitive topic , and a sensitive topic usually tends to have both sides on the edge . However i truly believe that what i am proclaiming is the truth . Maybe then we should let it in the format of 280.000-480.000 people . I think it is a fair outcome , even if i am sure that the real number is 480.000 for the reasons explained on the talk page . P.S Sorry if i might have seemed a bit arrogant in my way of writing , but hopefully you understand why .The apology is more that accepted , it requires a man of integrity to say sorry . Please do accept my apologies as well Gjirokastra15 (talk) 20:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow I didn't get pinged but I would like to thank you for your kind comments on your talkpage as well. I have also replied on my talk. Take care Gjiro. Δρ.Κ. ^λόγοςπράξις 00:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TALKNEW

Hi,

Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines behavioral guideline says:

• • Don't address other users in a heading: Headings invite all users to comment. Headings may be about specific edits but not specifically about the user. (Some exceptions are made at administrative noticeboards, where reporting problems by name is normal.)
  • Never use headings to attack other users: While no personal attacks and assuming good faith apply everywhere at Wikipedia, using headings to attack other users by naming them in the heading is especially egregious, as it places their names prominently in the Table of Contents, and can thus enter that heading in the edit summary of the page's edit history. As edit summaries and edit histories are not normally subject to revision, that wording can then haunt them and damage their credibility for an indefinite time period, even though edit histories are excluded from search engines. Reporting on another user's edits from a neutral point of view is an exception, especially reporting edit warring or other incidents to administrators.

With this edit (diff) you violated this guideline. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion

Gjirokastra15 Gjiro can I have your opinion on this case.hereLindi29 (talk) 14:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gjirokastra15 Gjiro can I have your opinion on this case here.Lindi29 (talk) 16:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Understanding

I guess after 6 years and almost 27k edits I have very little understanding of what the rules are here I'm hoping that you might illustrate my error in your vast experience of under 2 years and less then 1k edits. Consider that before lashing out take the advice of asking for full protection. Right or not a slow moving edit war will still get you blocked, unless there is a clear WP:NOT3RR reason to do so. I'd also suggest dial down the rhetoric on unregistered users but that's your choice. You are perfectly free to remove this but one thing you can't say if it continues is other options and guidelines weren't pointed out to you. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Albania has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. Alexikoua (talk)

If anyone of you two believes that i have broken any rules you are free to proceed to the relevant noticeboard . But please keep my wall free from your nonsensical dialogues . Removing a list of notable leaders without consensus and in fact contrary to the established consensus is totally nonsensical . Now i might be totally wrong , but your implication shows to me that there is a link between your accounts . Thus i will ask for a sockpuppet investigation just to be on the safe side . Alexikoua i attribute it to your lack of understanding the fact that you post that generic text to my wall. Said more simply non based accusations are a non ethical and non acceptable practice and as per WP:BOOMERANG i would think twice before posting them . Gjirokastra15 (talk) 18:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't forget to notify me on my page when you file your investigation. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 2015

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Seven seals. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:40, 21 October 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) 17:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Best of the Season to you

		Best of the Season to you!
		Best of the Season to you Gjiro and a Happy and Prosperous New Year! Dr. K. 20:59, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Gjirokastra15. 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]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Gjirokastra15. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your behaviour

Hi, after some comments you have made [2], [3], [4], [5] on your own hatred toward Muslim Albanians and those who do not share your religious ideas, you should accept you were wrong before I ask for an topic ban as a way to stop your further uncivility. You have already showed you are not able to hide your personal problematic views and Wikipedia policy explain how administrators should proceed with editors like yourself. By the way, I am not a Muslim. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:50, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please proceed with the topic ban request / or any other request you have in mind. As per wp:boomerang i would suggest that you stop the non based accusations , and i certainly demand that you stop polluting my user talk page. Gjirokastra15 (talk) 21:01, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Read wp:boomerang carefully to understand it. I asked you to accept your mistake as this is the usual step before disruptive editors are reported. Te gjithe te mirat. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You asked me what? To stop discussing in the talk page with other editors? Are you that infinitely naive to think that i will get intimidated?Gjirokastra15 (talk) 21:12, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've told Gjiro to quit bringing up ISIS where it isn't relevant and also the commenting on other users' (perceived) edit histories isn't great. But a topic ban? Isn't that a bit harsh? Surely we all have better things to do than fight amongst ourselves.--Calthinus (talk) 21:30, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input Calthinus , you truly have my respect. However i need to point out , that it was the other editor who started the WP:PA because i obviously have made the cardinal sin of discussing on the talk page of an article. According to him i am not entitled to such a privilege , otherwise he will ask for a topic ban for an edit i made for which i have been thanked by two different editors. Gjirokastra15 (talk) 21:54, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did not ask you to not use talk page of that article. Contrary, read what I wrote there again and again. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:31, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gjiro, Ktrimi991 isn't Resnjari's sockpuppet, they just follow each other around. I'm 100% certain of this. Threatening an SPI is a dumb idea. Anyhow, Ktrimi991, if Gjiro apologized and clarified that they don't think most Muslims are connected to ISIS and promised not to make comments of that vein again, would that suffice to withdraw the case? Are you willing to do that Gjiro? Seriously this is the last thing we need.--Calthinus (talk) 22:45, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Calthinus If Gjirokastra15 apologizes and promises to not make any other anti-Muslim comment of course I will withdraw the case. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:49, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well i cannot apologize for something i have not said Calthinus, and i have clarified that i certainly do not think that , half of my family being of muslim background. My existence is obviously annoying him , given the fact that i have done nothing wrong. He cannot even formulate/quantify what his request is / what have i done wrong , he is rather taking segments from an old personal discussion and presenting them as relevant to something that is not connected to it Gjirokastra15 (talk) 22:54, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the time to read the quotes in question. Do you agree it is wrong to say any of those things, and would you apologize if you said something that could be interpreted in that way without clarifying? --Calthinus (talk) 22:59, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Calthinus It is over now , however it is not me trying to get him banned and you should keep in mind that he was the one that started with the personal attacks. Now that everything is over , i will admit that i did exaggerate, however it is a psychological reflex of mine to react harsh when i feel offended. Such is the adamic nature and like everyone else , i am not perfect either. I do stronly feel that Ktrimi991 is unjustifiably sensitive regarding my comments in Rresnjaris wall ( it seems that those comments have had a great impact on him ) , if it is of any value i can say that i might have exagerated as i was emotionally charged and i certainly have nothing against people , my problem is with concepts and ideologies. So i sincerely apologize if i did hurt him , but i am not gonna say that i do not believe most of the stuff i wrote Gjirokastra15 (talk) 01:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that you apologized. I was just trying to find the simplest way to defuse the situation, I'm not taking a side here. As I've already stated, I don't approve of either your ISIS comment or Ktrimi's topic ban one. Personally I would not have also stated his bold statement, but if I was you I would've immediately apologized then, on the other hand bringing up ISIS is the last thing you want to do when accused of Islamophobia. Also, while I personally dislike the "sensitiveness" that prevails on Balkan topics, Ktrimi is far from the worst offender when it comes to wikilawyering as sadly it is kind of part of the "local" editing culture on the Balkans (I wish the mods would put a stop to this, but they won't). And yeah I understand the harsh reaction, it's only human (I'm not innocent), but the problem is that on Wikipedia and the internet if you say things that are over the top they are likely to be overinterpreted ("she hates all Muslims") and make the situation rapidly get much, much worse. I can't speak for Ktrimi but my feeling is that he was not personally offended but that he interpreted your words/actions to mean you dislike those who do not share your viewpoint, and Muslims in general, which you (and everyone else, I slip up too), have to be careful to word things so that you do not come off that way. Everyone's entitled to their own point of view, it just happens to be smarter to voice it in ways that are not likely to offend people (if you voice it at all). Happy editing, --Calthinus (talk) 01:29, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Report

You can see [6]. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Gjirokastra15. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]