A minor correction - the article lists me as someone whose term is about to finish, but I actually left the Committee at the end of 2015. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:14, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. Better now? -Pete Forsyth (talk) 09:28, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and thanks for indulging my enthusiasm for pedantic detail. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:32, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If there's one thing that binds us wikifolk together, that enthusiasm is probably it. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 09:38, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More tedious nitpicks! 1) Yunshui resigned in 2015 and is not a current arbitrator. 2) I think you've mixed up Mkdw (who has never run before) and Ks0stm. 3) Salvidrim! withdrew in 2015 before voting began (not being on the ballot is one way to run unsuccessfully... ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:55, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. If Tony1 doesn't get to this in a few hours, I'll adjust. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 18:44, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Peteforsyth: I've made the correction regarding Ks0stm and myself. I apologize if this is a breach in protocol with the Signpost but I hope you can understand my concerns about the potential implications it might have on the election results if information about the candidates is incorrect. Mkdw^talk 19:43, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, thank you Mkdw. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 19:50, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of the seven arbitrators whose terms are about to finish, four are standing at this election for another term, and four are not contesting their seats But 4 + 4 = 8. I think you mean three are standing. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:56, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Graham87 10:53, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 18:44, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The "Brief Notes" section says this about Wikipedia Asian Month: "Taking place throughout November 2016, the purpose of Asian Month on the English Wikipedia is."

The purpose is...what, exactly? Unless I am very much mistaken, that appears to be an incomplete sentence. Joshualouie711 (talk) 14:31, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Joshualouie711, that's a vestige from a copy-paste. The associated text is in the first sentence. Thanks for pointing itout, I'll trim it out. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 18:44, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a minor correction, please note that my prior ArbCom service was from 2008 to 2014 (not 2007-2014). Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:41, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Fixed a couple more of these. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:25, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps this counts as a bigger nit. "Through this formula, the minimum score (support per (support+oppose) required for election is 50 (not itself a percentage)". So, how can this quotient, using natural numbers, yield a result (not a percentage) greater than one? Jim.henderson (talk) 00:34, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Good point. 0.5 was intended, not 50. Corrected now, and clarified. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 04:19, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Readers, apologies for errors. I have so much RL work pressure at the moment that it was hard to find the space to return to the text for pre-publication checking. Tony (talk) 01:12, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • And from me as well -- I edited the piece, but did not double-check these important details. Thank you to all for the observations and corrections. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 16:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]