User talk:GargoyleMT

Welcome to GargoyleMT's Talk Page

If you wish to comment here, please sign your comments with four tildes ~~~~.
Please add new comments to the bottom of the page. (If beginning a new section, use the "+" next to the "edit this page" to automagically add a header, too.)
If I leave a note on your talk page, please reply there. (Unless you feel strongly.) I watchlist talk pages I comment on when I expect a response, so I'll notice when you've reply.
Please be civil, don't attack anyone, and assume my edits were made in good faith. I strive to do the same.

(Thanks for the header idea, Gekritzl!)

Better late than never?

Welcome!

Hello, GargoyleMT, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck or looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Help Desk, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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, or ask the people around you for help -- good Wikipedians don't bite the newcomers. Keep an open mind and listen for advice, but don't hesitate to be bold when editing!

If you'd like to respond to this message, or ask any questions, feel free to leave a message at my talk page!

Once you've become a more experienced Wikipedian, you may wish to take a moment to visit these pages:

Best of luck to you, and happy editing!

Luna Santin 10:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :) --GargoyleMT 21:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there

Welcome to the collective. :-) --TheParanoidOne 19:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It seems most of us are wikigremlins of some sort... Though there are a couple exceptions. --GargoyleMT 19:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Corrections

Hi there, are you an administrator, few things need corrections, most of the administrators on wiki are closed minded, meaning do not know what they are doing... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.99.1.183 (talk • contribs) 23:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I beg your pardon. I'm not sure what you're talking about. It sounds as though you're upset at something I changed, but this is the only edit attributed to your IP address. I'll be happy to talk about any changes I made, but you have to let me know what you have a problem with. --GargoyleMT 12:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You did not answer the above question?

No, I am not angry with you, you sound ok, I am angry with certain scumbags administrators on this site who can not accept the truth, e.g. and simply run around doing what they want to do. So far, we were unable to find one good administrator. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.99.2.16 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I didn't answer your question on purpose. I don't know you, and you put me off balance by asking it. Especially since you and I don't seem to have had any contact. I am just a user here. I haven't had any experiences with administrators, but if you're calling one (or any) of them "scumbags," I guess you have. Maybe the wikipedia administrators are not "accept[ing] the truth", but I am a Babylon 5 fan, and this quote from Kosh feels appropriate: "Understanding is a three-edged sword." --GargoyleMT 04:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it may very well be more than 3 edge sword, for example, i tried to add under rocky marciano... Sugar Robinson was undefeated as an amateur. That's is fact, I simply added it in the paragraph where there is a mention of other fighters, so this one stupid user reverted that saying it's incorrect info, then I complained to the moron who runs this site Jumbo Wales, did not even bother replying and I was not even the only one who wrote him, it's a long story, but I believe adding that statement is certainly a prejudice of certain administrators who hate me and vice versa. Anyways, you are a fan of boxing? If so, great, I am a historian of the sport, former amateur boxer. E.g. http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Rocky_Marciano&diff=79761260&oldid=79754173 here's the change I made, instead of talking about it on the talk page, it was reverted, anyways, try to insert it a week from now, I wonder if they will revert it, after all, I was the one who improved many boxing sites here and added lots of new information. I can send you more stuff, I can email you directly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.99.3.25 (talk • contribs) 15:18, October 12, 2006.

Ah, now I understand how you found me. I edited Rocky Marciano to remove [1] and [2], as the user had made a number of bad faith edits, including a near-blanking of a page on my watchlist. As far as your reverted edits, find a credible source and cite them when you make your changes. That seems to be the way things are done - you can't simply "escalate" your issue by contacting well placed others. Work within the system. Do you have any evidence that the person who reverted your edit were actually administrators and not just editors? Perhaps they were not, and if not, accusing Wikipedia administrators of bad things won't (or shouldn't) help in the long run. The name calling is something you might want to drop, since it goes against WP:CIVIL and gives people ammunition to use against you. (Plus, it is rude.) I hope you will consider my advice, but that's all I can give you. --GargoyleMT 21:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice advice, the things you reverted that's good, as I said I added: see the link above, about Sugar only. I had problems with few administrators. If you go under sugar ray robinson you will see that I was right about him. Simply fits with other boxers. O yea, to you, no problem, you sound civil and all, we can talk nice forever if need be. I am simply saying there are some bad-ass administrators that I was very civil with them, But they were not with me, how much, how much can a person stand bs from somebody, not much... I mean, he could not even discuss problem on the talk page, but called me names. Anyways, see what you can do about the above statement of mine, as I edited. Anyways, what are your hobbies? I am otherwise historian.
I will tell you this much, the problems I had to go thru with some wiki administrators, you have no idea. There are so many mistakes on this site, I do not know where to start. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.99.1.206 (talk • contribs) 15:39, October 14, 2006.

Hey, did not hear from you, what's up, are you loosing the above argument, anyways, you need to add few things under Rocky, thru time, i always added the best stuff. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.107.220.180 (talk • contribs) 20:31, October 17, 2006.

I didn't think there was anything to say. Earlier I said that advice is all I can offer. If you want to make edits to articles, do so directly. --GargoyleMT 02:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, thanks, they will only attack me more, they are using this to their advantage, simply look at the above version and do it, i think i did nothing wrong by adding info on sugar. However, this behavior clearly shows wiki prejudice and their administration is wose than pathetic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.99.3.126 (talk • contribs) 15:52, October 25, 2006.

I don't know you, and I have no stake in your argument against the "administrators." I'm not interested in becoming your edit proxy. I was originally sympathetic, but your negativity and unwillingness to recognize the boundaries that I've communicated have resulted in a change of opinion. --GargoyleMT 04:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me

What sympathy, you are like the rest of these vandals, adding sugar ray robinson 85-0 is vandalism which i did, clearly shows your lack of judgment. What advise, you did not give me diddly squat.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.99.3.206 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Suikoden

Seems like you've beek keeping the suikoden entry clean of junk. There's one rather clueless individual who keeps adding forum topics under the thought that it would be a good idea to make an index of discussions. This person simply lacks the ability to understand rules (he has an incredible history of doing this sort of stuff). Just wanted to clarify that the stuff he does is not endorsed by any of the sites he links to, because you said such in his IP's talk page. --SARSadmin 08:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up, especially for the correction about what I said on the talk page. I was just speculating, of course. Suikoden needs a cleanup, for sure, but getting rid of the forum links is something easy for me to do. I'm mindful of the 3 revert rule, so if he keeps doggedly adding it, someone else will need to assist in the reversions. As an aside: this is definitely a person, and not (unauthorized) automated edits that feed off of an RSS script or similar? --GargoyleMT 13:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, definitely a person. He finally gave up doing his stuff on wikipedia, and will be making his topics index on a different webspace.--SARSadmin 00:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ghastly's Ghastly Comic

[3] Verifiability asserted in the second post from Ghastly. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I just read the first page of that discussion. The tone wasn't all that great, but the outcome is pleasing. --GargoyleMT 04:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Turd Ferguson

Hi GargoyleMT - just letting you know I'm batting for you on the Celebrity Jeopardy article and decided to revert Croctotheface's changes. I'm not going to hang around for an edit war there, as I'm sure Croctotheface will revert me in a matter of minutes and it's just too trivial in the grand scope of things, but I think he's really out of line on this one. -Rolypolyman 17:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't have a stake, and I don't see it as a battle, but I do see the position as a bit odd. It's not the only redirect with no mention in the article, but the current state doesn't seem to be what the Wikipedia policy creators intended... --GargoyleMT 18:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rapid prototyping / freeform fabrication proposed merge

Sorry GargoyleMT, I didn't realise that there were variations of the merge template - just getting to grips with the right ones! I transferred your comments to the rapid prototyping page. Thanks. - CharlesC 00:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I haven't much experience with merge templates either, except for the other merges suggested recently... --GargoyleMT 13:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it seems you have a grip on the subject. I've had a look at the dscussions and think you can be bold and act on a conclusion you can derive yourself. Thanks. frummer 17:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm glad I won't be stepping on your toes. --GargoyleMT 17:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to say I've replied to your recent comment on my user page on the article talk page (just to inform others too.) -- CharlesC 21:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: ISTJ move

I've replied to your question -- Lee Carré 14:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the welcome to Wikipedia, I really appreciate it. I've been coming to Wikipedia for years, reading constantly and fixing small errors and typos, but for some reason have had yet to make an account until now. Once again, thanks for the welcome. Unchain 01:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing typos is what caught me too. Enjoy the show! --GargoyleMT 01:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome Gargoyle, and thanks for the advice about sources, I'll keep it in mind. Thanks again! FMN92 15:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing our links

You've been removing links on the TradeWars_2002 page, please stop. We are an active community, we can take care of the page ourselves. There are no promotional products on any of the links, they provide a large cache of downloadable resources, research, tutorials, and links to other areas of the community. They are rarely self-promotional. These links are frequently suggested around the community forums and removing them does a disservice to people that would like to play the game. Thank you. Feel free to remove this comment now that I have your attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnyarri (talk • contribs) 17:21, May 28, 2007

Whoah. I'm removing the links based on the wiki's policy on external links, so please review it before telling me to ignore it: WP:EL. If you're associated with any of the linked sites, you may want to read the policy on conflicts of interest as well: WP:COI. Wikipedia isn't a vehicle for advertising, but the TW2002 article does link to the Dmoz (Open Directory) category for TW2002, so if you're there, people can still find you through the entry. --GargoyleMT 03:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Frank

I'm not positive that Joe Frank is a copyvio. Reading the history of the article it looks like it was assembled bit by bit. It seems more likely that the official website copied our version. Probably from shortly after this edit: [4]. I'll see if anyone at the website has anything to say. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 06:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your conclusion, I did the same thing (except with looking at the Wayback machine too). I tried to document what I did on Talk:Joe Frank. Since someone alleged copyright violation, I've tried to follow Wikipedia's policy, but this is my first time through this particular procedure. There didn't seem to be an obvious place to post "hey, someone with more responsibility than me, please check these two items for copyright infringement." Any guidance is appreciated! --GargoyleMT 13:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will, have you heard anything back? I'm uncomfortable leaving the page in its current state (with the copyvio template). Is there anything I can do to bring more eyes to the subject (assuming that is helpful and desirable)? --GargoyleMT 03:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DC++

My pleasure. Perhaps it would be appropriate to create a section in this article to describe each of the projects that once had their own page - if the sections would have enough content to justify their inclusion, anyway. Verisimilus T 14:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NB. I've copied this discussion onto the peer review page so they're easily followed by future reviewers.

Another World

Hi - Please see note on my talk page. Gekritzl 22:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GargoyleMT - thanks for your note, please see my reply on my talk page. Gekritzl 22:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have watchlisted your talk page for the time being, so I'll take a look. :) I like the header you put at the top, do you mind if I borrow an item or two from it? --GargoyleMT 12:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - of course I don't mind if you borrow from the header, help yourself! :) Gekritzl 19:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suikoden Task Force

Hello. I recently saw work you did on Suikoden II and thought you might like to know that I am attempting to form a Suikoden Task Force. To see a rough version of my plan and the beginnings of the taskforce page (and to join if you like), check out User:Bwowen/Suikoden. Also, feel free to contribute to the ongoing discussion about my ideas and your own at its talk page. Thanks. bwowen ^talk.^contribs 14:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I'll check it out. --GargoyleMT 12:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category order

That's a good question, and is one without a clear answer. In the Wikipedia:Categorization FAQ, in response to the question on this topic, another editor expresses that there are two obvious ways to categorize articles, either by importance or alphabetically. That editor, and I, believe in the "importance" guideline. However, there is no policy right now about that specific topic.

I further think that what a person chooses to become or do is more important than that which they have no control over. So, no one has control over when they were born, and few have control over exactly when they die, so I put birth and death date cats last. That is exactly the opposite of what happens with alphabetized cats. I don't go around looking for articles to change to my preferred format, but when I'm working on the categories in an article, I almost always change them to be how I'd sort them. I also don't revert others who change the order back, because, really, it's not that important (which is probably why there's no official policy). Gentgeen 22:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. I like your rationale. It seems like it would be difficult to codify into policy, and even moreso into the automated tools people use. Except, of course the birth/death categories. Very interesting. Thanks for your time in replying, I do appreciate it! --GargoyleMT 12:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link removed

I disagree with you marking my entry as 'link spam'. The link provided was highly relevant and certainly not spam. If you marked it as possible copyright issue, then you'd have a point. But then again, why's there more links to audio that might be copyrighted too? You use double standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.212.132.30 (talk • contribs) 14:19, July 25, 2007

I'm sorry if you feel that "link spam" is a harsh summary for your edits. I made that judgment because almost all of the edits from your IP were to add a particular external link to a number of articles. The descriptive text I saw read like an advertisement to get people to visit the site (though subdued). I didn't cite copyright concerns because that would be disingenuous (especially if the samples are short and may qualify as fair use). I didn't evaluate all of the links in the articles I edited, I just removed yours, because you had caught my eye (because you added your link to a page on my watchlist). Wikipedia isn't supposed to be used for promotional purposes, and as such, I don't feel that your link passes the external link guides. Wikipedia is suited to handle audio files, for those links that were to samples, uploading them (and supplying a fair use rationale, if one is required) is a much nicer way to handle it, and avoids the appearance of promoting a particular site. --GargoyleMT 04:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even bother to take a look at the link? If you had done so you would have noticed that indeed the link was relevant, and the audiosample that is on it is also shorter than 30 seconds. The link provided is not a commercial site, but it is a reference of all classic breaks used throughout the years. I suggest you take a good look at what people actually add instead of removing stuff just because you *think* it might be spam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.212.132.30 (talk • contribs) 05:52, July 26, 2007

I didn't bring relevance into the mix, as a site may be relevant and adding it still qualify as spam. Adding a link to multiple articles to promote the site fits the definition of spam here: WP:SPAM. (As I said before, having the media clip on Wikipedia itself benefits the project more than an external link.) --GargoyleMT 12:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roethlisberger

After reviewing the statement's references, and also some stories on Google News and Topix.com, the whole Roethlisberger-Peregrym thing seems like some tabloid story as opposed to material of an encyclopedic nature. I cannot find any sources that confirm the relationship of the article; almost all sources either claim they are seeing each other, or were merely spotted together at a public event. Given the content was originally posted in the Trivia section to begin with, I no longer see point to keep it, unless it is properly sourced and added to another section (ex Personal Life). --ShadowJester07 ► Talk 15:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's essentially how I see the thing. Even if properly sourced, I read WP:BLP as giving cause to remove it, as a privacy measure. I don't consider people's romantic life to be part of the public purview, and chronicling it seems more like a role of tabloid news outlets than a role of Wikipedia. Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the matter. --GargoyleMT 02:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sc2 AfD

Hey, thanks for adding the keep boxes to the SC2 races. I'd removed the notices but managed to completely miss that. :P --Kizor 00:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite welcome. There seem to be a mish-mash of wikiproject tags on them, too, which we may want to standardize. The video game one is obviously a keeper, but there's a strategy game project tag on one or two of the races as well. (And that's not counting all the unsigned edits.) The AfD notice was easily added with AWB, yours was the harder task. :) --GargoyleMT 02:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, good point. I personally avoid AWB - its power to make Wikipedia-wide changes is entirely too much for single users to hold in an environment with a fragile social structure and emphasis on doing what you can get away with.
I'm more concerned with the content of the articles and will follow your lead on the project tags. But just to make your life more difficult, the first Star Control has a solid strategy game mode while the latter two, though hybrids, can make no claim to being strategies. --Kizor 10:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suiko Article/references

Hi, thanks for info on references, I'm still learning and will do my best to use those tags in future edits. Regarding reliability, I think they're all allowed, although again I'm still learning so I may be wrong I'll do some more reading up on those areas, cheers. RBlowes 16:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the sources are fine for a video game article, at least IGN, CNET, and RPGamer. I don't think Gamerevolution fits this (from WP:RS): "Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight." The others might not either. Again, there is no reason to remove them from the article, but I wouldn't count them as fitting Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source. --GargoyleMT 21:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soundtracks

I'll take your criticisms and learn from them but please, stop undoing my edits. The pages I'm editing have almost NO content and you undoing my edits only keeps them sparse and uninformative. Please stop unless you are replacing my edits with better ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EditingMachine (talk • contribs) 01:41, August 4, 2007

UPDATE*

I just looked at my watchlist and you undid a LOT of edits. These are pages you have added nothing to in their entire history (I know, I checked.)

You have no right to undo edits unless you are contributing to the page. If you were fleshing out the pages I could see some validation but as far as I can see your unedits were uncalled for. I don't want an edit war but I will be undoing your changes if I decide to add more material to a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EditingMachine (talk • contribs) 01:52, August 4, 2007

Whoah. Anyone has the right to edit any page. What you're asserting seems close to a form of ownership, which is what the WP:OWN guideline talks about. I didn't mean for you to take offense at my edits, nor my commentary at your talk page - please assume good faith. As I said, a soundtrack section is good for any video game article, but I don't think the only content in it ought to be the name of the soundtrack, with a reference (serving as an external link). Summarizing a couple reviews, or giving release information like catalog number or release date (with a ref to the Japanese studio that released it -- taking care not to site something like gmronline, which is fan editable) would be perfectly acceptable "section stub" content. VGM is near and dear to my heart too. --GargoyleMT 13:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to imply ownership, I was just trying to make it clear that a lot of these undoes are holding back work on the pages. I know your edits are in good faith and they are fully understandable in a particular context, just it would have been better for the article if you added something to replace what you took away. I think the best solution is to take your advice on stopping the fan-linking. Maybe it's best to make the soundtracks have their own pages. is extensive already and I hope that adding to it won't be seen as 'fancruft' given that these soundtracks are genuine released media and can be enjoyed without needing to play their respective game. It'd be fancruft if it was a track listing in a game that did not have a soundtrack release. So in the end I'll do what I can to give the soundtrack pages a better, more professional and Wiki-friendly structure.EditingMachine 19:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there's no notability guideline for video game albums - but if there was one, that would be the guide to use to determine if an album "deserved" its own article. My personal guess is that albums for the bigger franchises (or more popular games) would probably be okay. For smaller (or even niche) games, the soundtrack mention probably belongs in the article. And if the article is small, the soundtrack section shouldn't overshadow it. (For those types of articles, the game ought to be expanded upon before the soundtrack is written about, probably.) I think we can agree to disagree about what I did - I think a link to the review of a soundtrack more properly belongs in the external link section than masquerading as a reference. For just citing that the soundtrack exists, a link to the publisher's release information would have no hint of trying to attract traffic to a particular site. If you really need a section there in order to not "hold back work on the pages" (which I don't really understand), perhaps you can add a relatively blank section in, with no reference to rpgfan or another review, but also use either the Template:sectstub or Template:expand templates. Oh, and a 'heh' to 'fancruft.' It seems to be in wide use, but it seems to mean what the user wants it to mean (WP:CRUFT notwithstanding, apparently, since I just found it). A detailed explanation seems to almost always be better. --GargoyleMT 20:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep your comments in mind when I work on these particular articles. I'm glad we came to a relative understanding and I look forward to seeing your continued work on wikipedia. EditingMachine 00:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Stratasys Logo.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Stratasys Logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 20:14, 30 November 2007 (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) 13:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, GargoyleMT. 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, GargoyleMT. 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, GargoyleMT. 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]