User talk:Samulili

Start a new subject here
NB! I answer questions on this page.

StrategyWiki links from game articles.

While the WP:VG articles do not forbid linking to StrategyWiki, they do not recommend it either. Following precedent, Featured Articles such as StarCraft do not include links to SW or other game directories. Please comment. --Scottie_theNerd 15:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Conrad photo

It would be greatly appreciated if you could restore to the Commons and to the "Joseph Conrad" article the classic photo of Conrad that used to grace the article. Nihil novi 14:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UEFA Women's Championship

Hi, I just noticed you'd added an interwiki link from the 2005 UEFA Women's Championship to fi:Naisten_jalkapallon_EM-kisat. Now, I'm not very good at Finnish, but it seems to me that the article you've linked to is on EM in women's football as a whole - not the 2005 edition specifically. As such, I've added an interwiki link from UEFA Women's Championship, but I haven't removed the link from 2005 yet, in case I've confused myself trying to get my head around the Suomi. Sam Vimes 14:46, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I seem to have lost track of which page I'm on. --EnSamulili 14:50, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

user fi commonsissa

Hei! Tein suomea äidinkielenään puhuville commonsiin {{User fi}}-mallineen. EnSamulili 7 July 2005 18:01 (UTC)

Kiitosta tiedosta, otin käyttöön. —kooo July 8, 2005 17:50 (UTC)

verses

Hiya,

you recently voted to delete John 20:16

Uncle G has made a wider proposal covering a much larger group of verses.

would you be prepared to make a similar vote at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Individual Bible verses, which covers the full list of verses in Uncle G's suggestion?

~~~~ 9 July 2005 16:36 (UTC)

Table namespace

User:Omegatron/Tablenamespacespam — Omegatron 01:09, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Image:Svega.gif

Regarding Image:Svega.gif, you tagged it as "Possibly Unfree," but I can't find it's entry on the Possibly Unfree page. The image is a promotional photo and I have labeled it as such. I'm not sure what the next step is to take, but I assume if there is no entry on the Possibly Unfree page, we can just delete the {{Template:PUI}} tag? Thanks -SCEhardt 19:18, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bad old ones

Hi, it seems that that special category is huge (severeal thousand images), while the days before and after that are small (less than a hundred images). Currently, June 19th takes forever.

I found that the "bug" is rather some weirdness in the current PHP version used on the toolserver. I will try to code around it tomorrow. --Magnus Manske 22:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hah! Fixed it! --Magnus Manske 22:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now it's really fixed. Sorry for the delay. --Magnus Manske 11:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kaupunginosakartat

Joo, tee vaan niille mitä haluat, en pahastu. Ehkä huomasitkin etten ole enää hirveän aktiivisesti tässä hommassa mukana... :) - ulayiti (talk) 18:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frank in fi.wiki

Now that I am blocked in fi.wiki I must approach you this way. Frank, for personal hatred towards me, has decided to take advantage of my block and vandalize my user discussion page with a fony Sock puppet charge: http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keskustelu_k%C3%A4ytt%C3%A4j%C3%A4st%C3%A4:Jaakko_Sivonen Everyone knows this is not true, I have wrtitten with my own name for long in Suomi24 for example. So, since I cannot currently delete that vandalism, could you please do it for me? Thank you. --Jaakko Sivonen 16:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ML poisti nyt epäilyn. --Jaakko Sivonen 17:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kun nyt kerta olen tässä haluaisin kysyä kuinka kuukauden muokkausesto voi olla kohtuullinen rangaistus yhdestä harkitsemattomasta haukkumasanasta? Pari viikkoa olisin ymmärtänyt. Etkö voisi vielä harkita eston pituutta? --Jaakko Sivonen 17:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pidempi esto johtuu siitä, että olit jo aiemmin saanut sekä varoituksia että eston henkilökohtaisista hyökkäyksistä. Todennäköisesti hellyn jossain vaiheessa, etkä joudu istumaan koko tuomiota. -Samulili 18:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Green League

Hi! I saw you reverted the edits on the Green League article to "my" version. I'm no specialist on Finnish politics, so I did not want to start an edit war, but I felt, like you, that the original article indeed reflected the position of the Finnish Greens (near the political centre) better. Could you perhaps add a reference to the article to a mainstream Finnish paper that indeed states that the Greens are generally perceived as centre-left? So the next time this user:80.164.106.54 reverts (y)our edits we have a reference to back up our argument. Thanks in advance! C mon 21:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to keep an eye on such statements and researchers' views. The fact is that some place Green League to the left, others to center-right and on average the supporters are reported to be in centre-left (more centre than left). I'll see what I can find. -Samulili 08:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! C mon 11:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I have seen that you have re-edited some of my changes to the articel about the Green League of Finland. First I want to say that I don't either wants to start an edit war :-). As I have explained, my party(The Socialist People's Party from Denmark) have started to cooperate closely with the greens parties, because we think that they, like us, are to the left of the social democratic parties(left-wing). My party have recieved an observer post in the European Green Party and our MEP is in the Greens-EFA group. I still see green parties(including the Green League) as left-wing, beacause of there politics and what it is based on. But I am almost satisfied with the current formulation in the article, and therefore I don't want change it, if it remains as it is now. Have a nice day.(Loens 15:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I'm glad that the article now offers a point of view we can both endorse. To continue with the issue (not the article) it is important to see that even though the green parties have a lot in common, they also have differences. From what little I know, it seems to me that the Danish De Grønne and the Norwegian De Grønne are very similar. Radical, quite far to the left, and a support of 1 %. The Finnish greens, however, has grown in the liberal centre as no other political party has filled that niche in late 1980's. This has enabled the Finnish greens to become more mainstream and gain a support of close to 10%, and over 20% in Helsinki, and over 30% among univiersity/college students. -Samulili 19:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. The Danish an Nowegian Greens are actually not so leftist. Actually, it is very difficult to place them at a political spectre(they don't seem to have a clear policy on many issues). But the main reason that they never have got electoral succes is, that there were parties in Norway and Denmark, who already used the green ideology as a part of there politics. My party and The Socialistic Left Party of Norway are both so-called Red-Green parties. Our ideology is green socialism or eco-socialism, which means that we have many values, which is not traditionally socialistic(decentralization, green tax-reform, sceptism of economic growth) even so we have a socialistic analysis of society. In Finland, Sweden and Germany you didn't had such parties. The left-wing parties in these countries were traditional communists. But in Norway and Denmark you had these red-green non-communistic left-wing parties, that were both socialistic and green. Thats why there were no place for the danish and nowegian greens. My party is real green party of Denmark, and thats why we have started to cooperate with the greens. Many of the former communistist(like the Left Alliance of Finland) is stil very old-fashioned and dogmatic. Therefore I am very pleased, that the green parties(including the finnish greens) have let us become a part of your movement. After all we are not the first green socialist to be a member of the EGP. Finally we I have a question for you: Are the finnish greens against the EU?(My party are in favour of the EU, but the the gdanish greens are against). Best regards(Loens 13:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Estolistalle?

Minkä ihmeen takia lisäsit mut estolistalle tekijänoikeusrikkomusten takia? Ei jumankauta, sinuthan tässä pitäisi estolistalle lisätä. Toivottavasti olet nyt tyytyväinen, saatanan mulkku.

Päivää

Olen levykevandaali. --Levyke 11:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting of graphic in a german article

German Wikipedia, Artikel "Phoniatrie" 09:08, 24. Sep. 2006 CommonsDelinker (Diskussion | Beiträge) K (The file Karte Phoniater Deutschland.jpg has been removed as it was deleted in Commons by Samulili.)

Hi Samulili,

first I tried to contact you over Commons, but I get no reply and could not find the link again, so I try again on your personal disc.site.

I could not understand, why my map was removed. From my opinion I controlled all things to documentate my copyright, but I am no lawer, only a simple doctor with rare knowledge of English.

Did you see a chance to help me for the copyright-shit und re-insert the map?

phoni, 12:25, 08 Jan. 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.123.171.75 (talk) 11:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hi! Please find my answer to your question at Commons:User_talk:Samulili#deleted picture. With best regards, Samulili 17:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Contributors

Where can I find a list of the users who have created the most entries? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.8.114.252 (talk)

StrategyWiki links from game articles.

While the WP:VG articles do not forbid linking to StrategyWiki, they do not recommend it either. Following precedent, Featured Articles such as StarCraft do not include links to SW or other game directories. Please comment. --Scottie_theNerd 15:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a link between StarCraft not linking to SstrategyWiki and the article being featured? Would StarCraft lose its status as a featured article if it had a link to StrategyWiki? I can't really think of any reson why not to add links to good quality outside references, especially when a) the external site is a wiki and b) the Video games project encourages contributing to StrategyWiki. Samulili 17:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a link? Well, if a featured article like StarCraft doesn't link to StrategyWiki, I presume there has been some previous debate over it. StrategyWiki is a complete Wiki on its own and articles on SW can easily be searched up through the StrategyWiki page, as already linked to from WP:VG. It is redundant to link to every single SW article from every single game article. External links tends to link to pages that have specific relevance - or in the case of linking to other Wikis, a Wiki dedicated to that particular subject. If we were to link to respective articles in other Wikis, we'll be flooding the pages with links to StrategyWiki, Encyclopedia Gamia, GameFAQs, GameSpot, IGN and so on. The fact that the Video games WikiProject encourages contributions to StrategyWiki does not mandate the linking of every article between the two Wikis.

But that is simply my interpretation of the situation. If you disagree with the points in this reply, I believe we should bring this to WP:VG and gather more perspectives. --Scottie_theNerd 03:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the Starcraft FA nomination there is no mention that a featured article must not have links to StrategyWiki. I'm afraid I disagree with your point about redundancy. Linking is the essence of the Internet and on-topic external sites should be easily accessible. Finding information should not be made difficult. It is in fact in the external link guidelines that Wikipedia articles can include links to Web pages outside Wikipedia when these pages contain further research that is accurate and on-topic and information that could not be added to the article because of amount of detail.

"Adding external links can be a service to our readers, but they should be kept to a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article." StrategyWiki is meritable, accessible and appropriate and there aren't too many links at the moment. In summary, my opinion is that the link should stay. Samulili 13:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your point of view

Samulili, Starts discuss but do not tray to terrorize or frightening people. You have some opinion what is vandalism, but unnecessary it is wise opinion. Just you wrong point of view. --Wanad 00:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First above all check Allison block for 3RR. It is arrogance which you support.. Second, I ask my friends to support me, what they did. Why only administrators and their friends can mount coalitions. Third, if I am accused I need do nothing according to the rule of civilized world. I can not be punishing until proof guilty. I need not proof my innocence. Thus, Sir! if you want be respected as civilized man proof without doubts my crime. If you can not just go away! If not, accept my world, you are boor and you support boors. Best, Wanad

User_talk:Wanad. Samulili 18:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you consider a nonsens?--131.104.218.166 13:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Say's Law

Some time ago I read that article and was confused by it. Thanks for making it better. (I just came from your RfA.) I dont know how it works on the other wikis, but here there has been some serious inflation on the number of edits that make users feel comfortable when supporting someone for adminship; so dont feel bad if it does not work out. Its looking good, hopefully it will stay that way. Good Luck, Brusegadi 03:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC) On another note, here, if you hit the edit button, you will find messages that were left for you but you may not have seen. This is because the box you have above your talk page has a link to add messages to the redirect page and not to this page. Brusegadi 03:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your RFA was successful

Congratulations, I have closed your RfA as successful and you are now a sysop! If you have any questions about adminship, feel free to ask me. Please consider messaging me on IRC for access to the #wikipedia-en-admins channel. Good luck! --Deskana (talk) 09:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on the adminship! :) SQL^{(Query Me!)} 10:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, indeed! I'm delighted that you made it. Welcome to the team :) - Alison ^❤ 16:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. NHRHS2010^Talk 10:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats. I look forward to working with you here as well. ++Lar: t/c 17:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I wrote "congratulations" in large text is because I am just largely congratulating this user. NHRHS2010^Talk 19:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hurray! I'm glad to see that you passed the gauntlet. ;-) --Iamunknown 04:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

University of Turku – motto

Hi, the translation you gave is not wrong and makes perfect sense, but the official motto in English is the one given on the English webpage http://www.utu.fi/en/studying/ and the University Strategy. I worked at the University and the motto I gave is the absolutely correct.

The official motto should be given in infobox and the literal translation and be given in the article itself.

Best Leopea (talk) 08:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No Permission

Hi Samulili. I noticed that some time ago, you suggested that en.wikipedia adopts a similar "no permission" mechanism to the one used at Commons. I thought you might like to know that we're now discussing this proposal here. --Rlandmann (talk) 01:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

Mikä vitun testi? En ole tehnyt mitään saatanan "testiä". Se oli täysin ligit edit. Mitä vittua menet revertoimaan sen, tampio? Juuri tämän paskan takia vihaan suomalaista Wikipediaa, jonka taso on todella syvältä ja editorit idiootteja. --84.249.164.59 (talk) 11:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jos et opettele käyttäytymään, tulet vihaamaan englanninkielistä Wikipediaa ihan yhtä paljon kuin suomenkielistä. Samulili (talk) 17:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Katsotko

menikö kaikki oikein File:Patrick_Doyle_December_2005.jpg kun yritin tehdä poistoehdotuksen, minä kun en osaa kaikkia enkkuwikin systeemejä--Musamies (talk) 15:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ensin pitää tehdä näin, eli {{pui|päivämäärä}}. Sitten näin sen kuvan alle tulevan ohjeen ({{subst:pui2|image=Patrick Doyle December 2005.jpg|reason=reason this image is non-free}} ~~~~) mukaan. Samulili (talk) 14:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

kiitän, nyt osaan jatkossa oikean kaavion--Musamies (talk) 19:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

menikö tämä poistopyyntö oikein

File:ArabianPrince2007.jpg tein siitä poistopyynnön pyyntö, menikö se oikein ja jos olet sitä mieltä että copyvio niin poistatko, kiitos--Musamies (talk) 18:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sikäli kun näen, niin aivan oikein taisi mennä. Mä en ikävä kyllä poista kuvia tai artikkeleita en-wikissä, koska oikeudet saadessani lupasin niin. Samulili (talk) 20:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oldelamer ja Oldetrijne

Moi, sulla kun on täällä ylläpito-oikeudet, niin viitsisitkö siirtää artikkelin Oldelamer nimelle Oldetrijne ja artikkelin Oldetrijne sitten nimelle Oldelamer. Artikkeleissa on oikea sisältö, mutta otsikot ovat näköjään menneet sekaisin. Kiitos. Roquai (talk) 14:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tehty. Samulili (talk) 14:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Terve

Osaisitko auttaa? Minulla on tässä Wikissä kaksi käyttäjätunnusta, 1010190ABC ja 101090ABC (Usurped). Asetukseni valittaa, koska minulla on muka 10 yhdistettyä käyttäjätunnusta ja yksi yhdistämätön (en-wikin 101090ABC, vaikka itse loinkin sen). Haluaisin saada vian korjattua. Olen siis sama henkilö kun fi-wikin käyttäjä 1010190ABC. 101090ABC (talk) 13:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Asia korjaantui. 101090ABC (talk) 13:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MSU Interview

Dear Samulili,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the communityHERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your nameHERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.9.34.167 (talk) 20:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. (X! · talk) · @175 · 03:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 20:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 08:13, 3 February 2013 (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) 12:52, 23 November 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) 12:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Samulili. 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, Samulili. 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, Samulili. 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]