User talk:Hooperswim

Welcome!

Hello, Hooperswim, 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:

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:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! .Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MOS: In the beginning...

The General Principles from the:

1. Internal consistency An overriding principle is that style and formatting should be consistent within a Wikipedia article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia as a whole. Being consistent within an article promotes clarity and cohesion. Therefore, even where the Manual of Style permits alternative usages, be consistent within an article.

2. Stability of articles The Arbitration Committee has ruled that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style, and that revert-warring over optional styles is unacceptable.[1] Where there is disagreement over which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor.

3. Follow the sources Many points of usage, such as the treatment of proper names, can be decided by seeing what other writers do about the problem. Unless there is some clear reason to do otherwise, it is generally a good idea to follow the usage of reliable secondary sources in English on the subject; the sources for the article itself should be reliable. If the sources for the article can be shown to be unrepresentative of current English usage as a whole, follow current English usage instead—and consult more sources.


Oceania swimming

G'day Hooperswim, thank you for contributions towards 2008 Oceania Swimming Championships. Unfortunately I had already created an article located at 2008 Oceania Swimming Championships so I have had to redirect Oceania Swimming Championships 2008 to there. But I have brought the participating nations and included the fact the open water and synchronized swimming was included. Next on my list was creating the Oceania Swimming Championships article but I see that you beat me to it. What is really lacking at the moment is articles on the medal winners and several other up and coming swimmers. Feel free to help with that task. Cheers -- Ianblair23 (talk) 05:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Jeremy R. Knowles

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Jeremy Knowles a different title by copying its content and pasting it into Jeremy R. Knowles. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other articles that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. 66.57.4.17 (talk) 14:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the info! Will keep in mind. Gracias. Hooperswim (talk) 16:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 04:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


On event names...

Hooperswim, why are you capitalizing "world record". That is not correct. Also, are you sure "Championship Records" is capitalized? Free Relay and Medley Relay should be Free relay and Medley relay. Capitalizing both words is not grammatically correct. 138.162.140.52 (talk) 20:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

World Record/Championship Record to me is capitalized, as it is the categorical name of the record. As a name, it gets initial capitalization: you wouldn't write "Michael phelps" or "Federica pellegrini" would you? Event names, such as "Medley Relay" or "Individual Medley", are names as well. I have never seen "individual medley" or "Medley relay", or any of the variants of initial capitalization, anywhere but here on wikipedia. I am somewhat ok with the strokes being lower-case when the shortened name is used (free, back, breast, fly), due to the implied informality of a shortened name. However, I'm not so much ok with it when the full name is used. 138.162.140.52, is there a reason your an anonymous IP and not logged in? Hooperswim (talk) 16:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hooperswim, thank you for your response. However, I think you are incorrect. I don't quite get your comparison. I haven't been in school in awhile, but isn't a name of a person a proper noun? Medley relay, individual medey, and world record is not a proper noun. It's a common noun. The full names of strokes cannot be uppercase. It's not a unique entity. For example, a correct sentence would be, "Michael Phelps swims the butterfly." Not, "Michael Phelps swims the Butterfly." The word butterfly is not a unique entity. However, if you can find anything in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters) that supports your claim, I will be happy to oblige.
Being a government employee, I sometimes edit at work. So I'm not comfortable logging in all the time. However, if you want to talk to me, I'm User:Philipmj24.138.162.140.53 (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the i.d. I believe event names to be proper names, and not common names. I also believe there to be a different between Mr. Phelps swimming "butterfly" and him swimming the "200 Butterfly". And within the swimming community, it is "Medley Relay", not "Medley relay" (and the MOS do say to take into account the population from which an article is sourced). Hooperswim (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I still respectfully disagree with you. I don't believe the event names can count as a proper noun. I'm not an english teach so I really can't explain this any further. I do believe whatever the "swimming community" thinks is correct is irrelevant and we should go by Wikipedia standards. Obviously, we both disagree on the subject. Perhaps there is a grammar nut out there that can sort this out?Philipmj24 (talk) 23:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the portion of the MOS I have copied above? Particularly #3? And "English" should be capitalized. Hooperswim (talk) 16:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Had to weigh in on this debate. I think that it's pretty clear that event names are capitalized. The stroke is butterfly, but the event is the 100 Butterfly. I think this might be what's leading to some confusion on the issue...the two references are not one in the same usage. As an event or a race, it's capitalized, much like you'd capitalize Super Bowl. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HatBucketBalls (talk • contribs) 17:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Creating redirects

Hi, Hooperswim. Just a heads-up, since you seem to be a little confused. When you create a redirect, it is not necessary or helpful to insert {{redirect}} on the page. {{Redirect}} is a template that is meant to be used on the page that a title redirects to, not on the redirect itself. Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh, thank you. I thought it was a tag for redirect pages (similar to disambig with disambiguation pagees). -- Hooperswim (talk) 20:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Swimming tags

There's 32 pages in Category:Swimming at the 1996 Summer Olympics - do they all need {{Expand list|reason=finalist prelims times are missing}} in the Non-qualifiers section? I know I'm repeating what you asked for but I want to check nothing has changed. Rich Farmbrough, 04:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC).(Using some automation)[reply]

From what I saw, yes: all the pages are missing the preliminary results for the top-8 or top-16 who swam a second time in a final. Hooperswim (talk) 19:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

swimmingrecordlegend

Hi. I eliminated parenthesis in legend. Regards.Montell 74 (talk) 21:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So did not understand what you meant at first. But do now: coolness (that's on here: Template:Swimmingrecordlegend). - Hooperswim (talk) 22:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unusual formatting

I appreciate your recent expansion of swimming articles such as Swimming at the 2003 World Aquatics Championships – Men's 100 metre backstroke and Swimming at the 2003 World Aquatics Championships – Men's 200 metre backstroke. However, its formatting isn't consistent with other swimming pages. For example, there is an unnecessary space after the infobox and the listed WR and CR. Speaking of the WR and CR, why do you move it out of the box? If you look at the most recent World Championship and Olympic articles, you can see the WRs and CR/ORs are listed in a box. Not only does it look cleaner, but it's also easier to read because there's a clear differentiation between the times, date, country represented, etc. On a larger scale, it also looks like you're completely switching the sequence of the events swum. You are listing finals, semifinals, and then prelims. Again, that goes against most other swimming articles where the sequence is switched around. How you listed the results is different as you combined the heat and lane assignments. Again, I appreciate your edits, but when we're expanding these articles, there has to be a level of consistency and it just seems your doing what is convenient to you. Philipmj24 (talk) 12:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Philipmj24, glad you noticed. As for the formatting, I'm trying to standardize it (as I did with putting in the 2005 Worlds results). The formatting of the more current articles tends to be done on-the-fly during events, and with multiple contributors--leading to half applied formatting. So, I'm working on standardizing the format, and doing the most recent last, as those pages are the most volatile and most prone to "undo's".
As for the records: they don't need their own section, nor a table that looks like the results and makes puts equal weight on time, swimmer, nation, date and location. The record, itself, is the time; the rest of the information doesn't call for equal billing (i.e. it's own column). The formatting outside the table also creates the reference point on the page for the abbreviations to the records, as well as links them to the records.
As for F->S->P, rather than P->S->F, this is more of information in order of importance (figuring most people care about the over-all winner and final placings, then in how they got there). Also, this puts the information from least-to-greatest (so the 8, then 16 then 100+-->and a read doesn't need to go through 100+ names to get to the top-8). And introduces the placings in order (the finals set the top-8 place, semifinals/prelims set 9-16, and prelims set 9+/17+).
Heat & lane in the same column because it makes it so that people can look at the heats in lane-order (and having the lane column separate from heat adds unneeded width on the page, as well as the ability to sort by lane, which is not a comparison needed).
And if you only saw my work on the 2003 100 and 200 back, than you are missing the majority of the week (even the majority of the work this week, let alone over a longer period). -- Hooperswim (talk) 20:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to item number two on my talk page, note that I added: "Highlighted swimmers achieved the qualification conditions to be included in the Olympic team in that respective event". I think it would sort of confusing to the reader if we were to highlight all three results in the 100 and 200 freestyles, although it would be technically correct. The 2012 Trials page does have a note that highlights what you say, but I wasn't sure on what the rules were for the previous years.
If you plan on standardizing every swimming article like you did with this, this, or this, I think this needs to be brought up with WP Swimming. We obviously differ on formatting but in my opinion, I think articles such as this and this looks cleaner and is more readable. If you were to revamp those articles like you did with the latter, I wouldn't support such changes.
For the records box (which by the way is common in the athletic articles) you say you don't like it because it puts equal weight on time, swimmer, nation, etc. To address this, we can simply bold the time to emphasize it (which I think is already done in the athletic articles). I think most would agree that having this information in a box would be the better option. If you still don't agree, we can ask our members in WP Swimming what we should do.
For the F->S->P rather than P->S->F and combing heat & lane (less with combining heat & lane), I can see your logic in those edits and may support those changes. However, maybe we should still bring this up to WP Swimming as this can affect hundreds of articles and it goes against the norm.
Again, I'm not going against your edits and appreciate your expansion. My concern here is consistency. Philipmj24 (talk) 22:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency

Hooperswim, I noticed that you reverted my edits in the Swimming at the 2003 World Aquatics Championships – Men's 50 metre breaststroke. PLEASE TAKE A LOOK AT THE EXAMPLE: Swimming at the 2011 World Aquatics Championships – Men's 50 metre breaststroke. Compare them with the one you created. THEY'RE NOT CONSISTENT AND NOT CLEAN! Sorry for the all caps, but I'm advising you to revamp the pages for consistency.

I am familiar with the hodge-podge stylings of the more current articles. Their also more volatile in the changes (so trying to add standards are hard)
What standards? Adding them would not be hard, but a challenging task. How familiar are you with hodge-podge stylings? What articles have you done with your own style that people don't have?

Here are my views:

  • The world and championship records must be placed in a box. It features a time, place, venue, and reference, if optional.

This places overdue stress on the records. And makes them look like results from the event.

They don't overdue stress. And they don't involve sorting, Hooperswim. That's why some of the swimming articles I revamped divides the records and results into sections. Can't you understand?
  • Results must be in chronological order. Heats should come first, followed by the semifinals, and then final. I don't understand why do you have to place them in order. If you think that you're right, then I prove that there's something wrong with the program and the schedule of the tournament.

If this is a case, then a note needs to be present that the person who "wins" prelims (and semis) isn't the overall winner. It's also putting the less important information first.

Less important information is not a key factor to build results. They are in chronological order, especially when you're generating results during the competition itself on a scheduled date.
  • Heat and lane must have a separate column, so that it's easier to arrange the results.

Putting them in the same column allows for sorting by heat (in lane order). Separating them does not.

There's also another factor to sort by heat in lane order even two columns are separated, so what's indeed a dilemma for it?
  • Semifinals must have a separate table for two heats, unlike the preliminaries.

Why? The results aren't considered separate. The 2 semifinal heats are part of the same session of the event.

Yes, they are part of the same session, but better to separate them. They're just two heats, so what's the use, and please don't add another row to separate swimmers who made the next round and those who didn't. Omit the gray line please. It's just simple and logic.
  • In the final, the gold, silver, and bronze icons are appeared in the box. Without any of these would be dull and untidy.

Without the icons, it is easier for people to read the numbers. (And your pretty little circles are included on the page in the box at the top.)

People can still read the numbers even the icons are displayed. Are you trying to give them some visual problems?

AND PLEASE STOP USING YOUR MOS PRINCIPLES ON THE USE OF ENGLISH! PROPER AND COMMON NOUNS HAVE THEIR OWN MEANING. DON'T APPLY WORDS, including butterfly, breaststroke, and freestyle, AS PROPER NOUNS AT ALL TIMES, especially when you name them in the articles.

I capitalize event names.
Does the consensus agree with your idea? I don't think they do. You made other users feel like aliens because of your idea. They're grammatically incorrect, don't you UNDERSTAND?

Thank you! Raymarcbadz (talk) 18:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Raymarcbadz: Responses above. And note: my main concern at this time is getting the information added. (And my apologies that I capitalized the "R" in your name: you'll probably see it as over-capitalizing.) - Hooperswim (talk) 21:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I already responded your comments, but please try to analyze other swimming pages again. You're not even listening to me and Philipmj24 about the concept of "event names", and other features. Think, think, think! Thank you! Raymarcbadz (talk) 04:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is wrong to believe I have not thought about these things, or that I do not continue to think about these things, or that I have not looked at other pages. And it is never my intention to alienate someone nor offend them (although I'm getting the impression that that is your intention). -- Hooperswim (talk) 14:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Subcategories for events

When there are a number of articles about one sport at a particular event, it is usual to put them in their own subcategory, which I have done for Category:Swimming at the 2009 Southeast Asian Games. Hugo999 (talk) 21:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some help

Hello! I would ask if you know any Canadian website or portal, that has the following sports information: "all medals of Canada in the Pan American Games." For me, it's hard to look for this information, but for those who live in North America should be easier. I'm needing it to complete some things on Wikipedia, speccialy in swimming articles. If you could help me, I would be grateful. Rauzaruku (talk) 20:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These sites don't have it. I was thinking in some Canadian portal or a Canadian newspaper site, that could have this information well-categorized. I would like to find something like this, in a Canadian version: http://pan.uol.com.br/pan/2007/historia/1999/nopodio.jhtm . Rauzaruku (talk) 22:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond the Canadian Olympic Committee and PASO, I am not sure how to guide you. They both most likely have the information, although they both have new websites (which may mean that medalist content is not yet posted). As for sources further removed from these, I not really aware of them. The national sports federations might have some histories? - Hooperswim (talk) 22:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hulme

Hey, Hooperswim. Nominate the Hulme article for AfD and I will support deletion for failure to satisfy notability guidelines per WP:NCOLLATH or WP:GNG. No record of Hulme ever having swum in international competition for the U.S. national team. Looks like a run-of-the-mill college athlete. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pan Am Games medalists

Hey, Hooperswim. What are the odds I could convince you to add the completion of Swimming at the Pan American Games to your to-do list? Looks like a relatively straightforward exercise if you have access to the current Pan Am Games or USA Swimming records. Let me know if you can do it, or if you can provide links to or copies of the relevant records for me to do it. We really need a completed list of Pan Am Games swimming medalists, with sources, to help us build out our American, Canadian and Latin American swimmer bios. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ditlawyer: Greetings. Have you tried using ISHOF's listing of medalists? Medalists ? Pan Am medalists start on page 17/18. - Hooperswim (talk) 20:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Hooper. The ISHOF's medalist list is complete through Pan Am Games XIV (2003), but does not include the last two. Looks like the FINA championships stop at 2005, too. Do you know if ISHOF has a more up-to-date list? You would think they would -- they are the ISHOF, after all! Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The list was generated in 2005. While ISHOF may have actual records of the results after 2003, they are probably printed and not online. However, the medalist from 2007 and 2011 are more likely to be online still (both were originally). PASO probably also has up-to-date records offline as well (typically in a book format, which may have all finish times), and they may have sent a copy of it to each NOC (similar to what the LA84 Foundation has put online for the Olympics). It's a matter of seeing that list.... - Hooperswim (talk) 21:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Wilkins vs. Wilkens

Hooper, what is your source for this move: [1]. I have multiple sources for Wilkens spelled with an "e", but only your page move for Wilkins spelled with a second "i." Presumably, you had a definitive source for the move -- please let me know so I can add the reference to the article, and complete the article clean-up, which presently spells the last name with an "e" for everything but the article title. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dirt, I actually ended up seeing multiple references for both the "e" and "i" spelling. So I'm not sure which it is. (It's also why I halted switching one to the other.) - Hooperswim (talk) 12:42, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hooper, if you don't object, I'm going to move it back to the "e" spelling. I just spent 40 minutes looking at online local newspaper coverage in New Jersey, and the locals all spell his name with an "e", including from his time as an elected township board member (2005–08). He apparently remains actively involved in local civic affairs as a volunteer committee member, and his name turns up as "Thomas P. Wilkens" in releases from the township board. My assumption is that the locals (a) know how to spell his name, and (b) he would have corrected them by now. I also found hits for "Stephanie Wilkens," his wife. I started off looking for contact information -- phone number or business name -- and could not find any; I'm not above picking up the phone and asking him or his wife, but that requires a number. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:07, 17 July 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) 16:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Caribbean Island Swimming Championships, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nassau. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:57, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to the African Destubathon

Hi. You may be interested in participating in the African Destubathon which starts on October 15. Africa currently has over 37,000 stubs and badly needs a quality improvement editathon/contest to flesh out basic stubs. There are proposed substantial prizes to give to editors who do the most articles, and planned smaller prizes for doing to most destubs for each of the 53 African countries, so should be enjoyable! So it would be a good chance to win something for improving stubs on African sportspeople, including footballers, athletes, Olympians and Paralympians etc, particularly female ones, but also male. Even if contests aren't your thing we would be grateful if you could consider destubbing a few African articles during the drive to help the cause and help reduce the massive 37,000 + stub count, of which many are rated high importance (think Regions of countries etc). If you're interested in competing or just loosely contributing a few expanded articles on African Paralympians, Olympians and committees etc, please add your name to the Contestants/participants section. Diversity of work from a lot of people will make this that bit more special. Thanks. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Hooperswim. 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, Hooperswim. 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]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Hooperswim. 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]