Hi,

I added a reference to the dental implant page with regards healing times being improved by PRGF - but this appears to have been removed.

Looked at history etc but couldn't see a reason for this. Could you please advise as to how I'd go about getting this added back in as I believe it's quite a relevant article for this aspect of dental implant dentistry.

Thanks Dave

Dave ashworth (talk) 10:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dave,

When I look at the Dental Implants page on my computer, I still see the reference to PRGF. This is an excerpt from the page that I copied today:

"One approach to accelerating the healing time following dental implant surgery is the use of Platelet rich growth factors (PRGF). By taking a blood sample from the patient and placing their isolated platelet rich growth factors at the implant site during surgery, studies have shown a significantly increased rate of healing. A pioneer of this technique, Dr Eduardo Anitua, has published research on the benefits of PRGF.[24]"

I did not delete any references to PRGF. Maybe try refreshing your internet browswer or deleting the browsing history.

Rod Dailey

Hi Rod,

My apologies - was my bad.

Noticed there are two pages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dental_implant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dental_implants

Oddly - when I am NOT logged in, the excerpt doesn't appear on the latter, plural page. When I am logged in, it appears on both. Also, if you go to edit the latter page when not logged in, when the edit screen comes up, the text is there!!

Anyway, I think it's some sort of caching issue so thank you for your swift response, it is much appreciated.

Regards, Dave

Dave ashworth —Preceding undated comment added 10:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 23:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Napata, as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. I don't think this is the only article where you are making changes that aren't minor while marking them minor, please try not to do this. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 19:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your prompt and constructive response on my talk page. Dougweller (talk) 20:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to be a little slower on the rollbacks. Generally accepted procedure is something like this: Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. You've added a significant amount of text that I've tried to preserve in my edits, and where I haven't been able to preserve it I've raised the specific problems with it, but I've seen a number of my edits disappear without explanation because you simply undo my changes. Multiple full blown reverts in short succession doesn't go over well on WP. Thanatosimii (talk) 22:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Ancient Egypt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Necho (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there -- long time no speak! Sorry, have been busy with a number of things for a while, and have not been very active here since helping to bring the Rosetta Stone up to Featured status last year.

Business will take me to Cambridge, U.K. next week, and am planning on visiting the extensive Ancient Egyptian collection at the Fitzwilliam Museum while there and I plan on bringing my camera along (assuming non-flash photography is allowed). Is there anything you will like me to be on the look-out for to help illustrate any of the articles you have an interest in?

Cheers! Captmondo (talk) 15:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Ancient Egyptian race controversy shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Dougweller (talk) 20:27, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dailey78, if you make any additional reverts you may be reported at the edit warring noticeboard. You are expected to listen carefully to see if other editors are in support of your changes. A consensus on the talk page is the best evidence that others support you. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please never tell readers what should be noted, that's pov and deprecated at WP:EDITORIAL. You also shouldn't interpolate material into sourced material. If you want to make an argument about the AE language being purely African, find sources backing the BEH and add them separately. Please don't duplicate material as you did in the lead at that article. Also, please don't use two sources by the same author for the same text as you did at [1] as this is misleading. When you or anyone uses an edited book, the chapter and author needs to be cited, not just the editor. I'd tell anyone the above, I'm not singling you out. Dougweller (talk) 12:53, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback DougRod (talk) 19:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please drop the personal attacks in your edit summaries. Among other things, they make you look bad. And while I'm here, statements such as "University of Y scholars say" are not really acceptable, especially when you have no idea who they are. Also, I'm considering removing everything mentioning Teeter until we can sort out the authorship. Dougweller (talk) 05:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep your edit summaries neutral - as they stand you are using them as commentary on editors, authors, etc. This isn't occasional, it seems to be your standard way of using edit summaries. WP:Edit summaries says "Avoid inappropriate summaries. Editors should explain their edits, but not be overly critical or harsh when editing or reverting others' work. This may be perceived as uncivil, and cause tension or bad feelings, which makes collaboration more difficult. Explain what you changed, and cite the relevant policies, guidelines or principles of good writing, but try not to target or to single out others in a way that may come across as an attack or an insult" and "Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content or to express opinions of the other users involved." Dougweller (talk) 07:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your language is raised at WP:NPOVN#Herodotus & the Ancient Egyptian race controversy. I'm a hairs-breadth from raising an RfC/U on you - I warned you about edit summaries yet I see "removing Herodotus character assasination" recently, a clear attack on other editors. Dougweller (talk) 11:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dailey78. You have new messages at Dougweller's talk page.
Message added 18:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Dougweller (talk) 18:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Black Egyptian Hypothesis shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Dougweller (talk) 21:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way Rod, you left the edit war note on my page... it doesn't apply to me, though it does to you, as I have only reverted once in the last 24 hours- and only twice on that page in the past week actually. I haven't violated WP:3RR. --Yalens (talk) 23:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I have not deleted any of the text from other editors, but have only added to the existing text and rearranged the article. You do not own Wikipedia and there is no reason that I shouldn't continue to edit this article.Rod (talk) 06:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I give up. You've reverted 4 3 times, I and the other editors once each. Those were clearly reverts. Dougweller (talk) 07:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've examined your last edit more carefully. It could still be considered edit warring but the only deletion I can see it probably too trivial to bother so I've removed the 3RR warning, redundant in any case - note that you won't get any more of these from me and if you edit war anyone can report you without another warning - I'm telling you this so that you don't misunderstand the situation, some editors think they would need another warning before being reported but that's not the case. Dougweller (talk) 07:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being balanced, as I'm sure you must realize by now that there is considerable support for Herodotus.Rod (talk) 14:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Dailey78 reported by User:Dougweller (Result: ). Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 15:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may be able to avoid a block if you will respond appropriately at WP:AN3#User:Dailey78 reported by User:Dougweller (Result: ) within a reasonable time. EdJohnston (talk) 18:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Black Egyptian Hypothesis". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 12 January 2014.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Black Egyptian Hypothesis". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 05:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

At [2] the decision was to accept your voluntary restriction instead of blocking - note that the result says 'restriction'. I don't know if you have forgotten that or decided that it no longer applies, but I don't think that's the case. Please start abiding by this. Dougweller (talk) 08:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see you hit 3RR - again, given your restriction, this is not good and reinforces the need for the restriction. 3RR is not an entitlement. Dougweller (talk) 09:21, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop with the intimidation tactics. I only reverted twice and then started a rather healthy discussion on the Talk page. Other editors made subsequent reverts. Please be factually accurate before accusing me of misuse of Wiki. Person to person Dougweller, do you not feel that my edits (over the last few years) have been beneficial to these A.E. articles? Just curious.Rod (talk) 15:52, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm supposed to answer you after you personally attack me? I'm not using intimidation tactics, I'm telling you you are in breach of your restriction and that you are at 3RR. Not 2RR. The 3rd revert was [3]. Dougweller (talk) 16:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a revert. It's an edit of the lead. There is no one reinserting that text in the lead for me to revert it. What are you talking about?Rod (talk) 16:50, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary calling editors you disagree with "Brothers of faith" is both a personal attack and disruptive - and this article is under ArbCom sanctions. It would be a good idea if you retracted this comment on the talk page or a dummy edit. Dougweller (talk) 09:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. This seems reasonable. Unlike the fake controversy over the pics from non-controversial articles.Rod (talk) 15:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please undo your refactoring of my comments as per WP:TPG this is unacceptable. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Already done. Don't take it personallyRod (talk) 17:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At this link from September 2013 you agreed to follow a voluntary restriction: "I agree to wait for consensus before making any more edits about Black Egyptians. Rod (talk) 22:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)".

User:Dougweller has complained to me that you are no longer following that restriction at Black Egyptian Hypothesis. Do you have anything to say in your defence before I consider banning you from that page as well as Ancient Egyptian race controversy under WP:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann#Article probation? EdJohnston (talk) 19:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The Talk Page is full of constructive discussion between me and other editors. I follow the restriction and I attempt to reach consensus. Please see the Talk Page. The latest edits came after a year of consensus building on the Talk page (regarding the topic of the latest edits, pictures), which culminated in at least four editors agreeing to the edit. Doug routinely attempts to have anyone disagreeing with him, Yalens, or Aua banned from these articles. The latest edits are being constructively discussed at WP:NPOVN and constructively discussed on the article's Talk Page. Furthermore, the edits are being discussed on Paul B's Talk page, where Doug admits that another editor is trying to have him banned from these articles due to misconduct. If Doug is under review to be banned from these articles due to misconduct, is he a good source to recommend that I be banned from the same articles?

Finally, this accusation does not impact the Ancient Egyptian Race Controversy article, as no one has complained about my edits to that article.Rod (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After perusing the discussion at Talk:Black Egyptian hypothesis#Gallery of Photos I remain unconvinced that you have consensus. The phrase 'waiting for consensus' suggests that you wait until the talk page has settled down and you then make an edit. I don't see you doing this, you are just plunging ahead. In some cases you make the same edit twice if you are reverted. For example this edit #1 and this edit #2 to restore the same material, both on January 6. Engaging in an edit war while claiming in your edit summaries that there is no war is especially ironic: "The picture war (red herring) does not exist." Since this edit war is taking place on an article which is under Arbcom probation it is especially serious. I am issuing a two-week block for WP:Edit warring. It can be appealed using the procedures explained in WP:GAB. EdJohnston (talk) 21:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, I've seen that you wrote " The majority of the balance can be found in the A.E. Race controversy article, however the black theory article is also balanced as Yalens, Aua, Doug, etc. ensure that it remains that way (and I appreciate them keeping everyone honest)." Thanks very much for that. You have indeed helped improve these articles and your knowledge is useful. However, there are have been a couple of problems One of them has led to your current block. I'm hoping that when you come back nothing like that will happen again. I felt that you were implicitly supporting Andajara - and that was a real train wreck with no other likely outcome, although I think discretionary sanctions are better in this area than the obsolete article probation.

The other problem which I think feeds into the behavioral problems is that you lack width of experience on Wikipedia and probably because of that still don't fully understand our policies and guidelines. You've only made 790 article edits and only to 72 pages. It takes time and experience to really understand how we work, and I am still learning after over 114000 edits. Dougweller (talk) 16:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

We never use 'admitted' in the context you used it. That's a clear WP:NPOV violation. In addition by adding just part of a sentence you misrepresented the entire sentence. I've removed 'admitted' and added the entire sentence. Dougweller (talk) 10:22, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AgreedRod (talk) 15:42, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your next edit on Lloyd was at least as bad, interrupting a quote to put in your 'however' comment and adding only part of the next sentence. I'm bothered by the fact that you still aren't editing according to our policies and guidelines. Oh hell, I've also realised that you've broken your restriction. Dougweller (talk) 13:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My next edit on Lloyd simply expanded the quote from the same source as the initial Lloyd quote and grouped Lloyd sentences together (reordered the sentences). You are on a witchhunt to silence those that don't agree with your POV, as usual. This has been noticed by many editors that don't share your biased "monitoring" of the article in question.Rod (talk) 15:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've been mentioned at User talk:EdJohnston#User Dailey78 has broken his restriction again. You can respond there if you wish. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 13:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any progress regarding the complaints that others have made about your editing previously. For example, see the material on your talk page (above) from January, 2014. You have replied at my talk page but without explaining your apparent violation of your voluntary restriction. Criticizing the behavior of others is not a defence. By accepting the restriction in September 2013, you agreed to get consensus before making changes, but instead of actually doing that, you just go ahead and make your changes. The closure of the 3RR report said "Dailey78 will wait for consensus before making any more edits about Black Egyptians". In January 2014 Arbcom authorized the use of discretionary sanctions for WP:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann so I'm imposing a topic ban under that authority. I previously informed you about the Dbachmann arbitration case in January. EdJohnston (talk) 16:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following sanction now applies to you:

Topic ban from all pages relating to Ancient Egyptian race controversy and associated articles

You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to User talk:EdJohnston#User Dailey78 has broken his restriction again

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at WP:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions for that decision. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. EdJohnston (talk) 16:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to see you posted to the talk page of a sock (Andajara120000} looking for support, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Johnjohnjames/Archive. I'll fix the talk page so others realise he/she is blocked. Dougweller (talk) 16:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dailey78, since you are banned from the topic of the Ancient Egyptian race controversy you may not make third opinion requests about the topic. If you want to appeal the ban the instructions are in Wikipedia:AC/DS#Appeals and modifications. EdJohnston (talk) 12:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dr. Blofeld has created Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/Contests. The idea is to run a series of contests/editathons focusing on each region of Africa. He has spoken to Wikimedia about it and $1000-1500 is possible for prize money. As someone who has previously expressed interest in African topics, would you be interested in contributing to one or assisting draw up core article/missing article lists? He says he's thinking of North Africa for an inaugural one in October. If interested please sign up in the participants section of the Contest page, thanks.♦ --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 01:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please confirm that you are aware of your ban from "the Ancient Egyptian race controversy and associated articles". If you make any more edits like this one to Black Egyptian hypothesis you may be blocked to enforce your ban. My message from 2014 that explains your ban is still visible above. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of any indefinite ban. What's the problem with the edit?Rod (talk) 17:12, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bans are indefinite unless otherwise specified. It was properly logged in WP:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log/2014#Ancient Egyptian race controversy. If you want to appeal it you can file an arbitration enforcement appeal at WP:AE. If you are asking me to reconsider the ban, I'm declining. In answer to your question about what the problem is, you are not supposed to be editing that article at all, regardless of the quality of your change. If you want the ban lifted, in a case where POV-pushing is alleged, I'd want some reason to believe you can edit neutrally in the future. It is understood that people can't just 'wait out' their ban and then return to the kind of editing that caused the original concern. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dailey78. 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]

I have declined your appeal of your indefinite topic ban from the Ancient Egyptian race controversy. Please note that your ban continues to apply until a successful appeal: the only exception to the ban is an appeal at requests for Arbitration Enforcement or at the administrators' noticeboard. To repeat what I said in the close: it is not helpful to try to wait out an indefinite topic ban. For any appeal to be considered seriously, you need to demonstrate that you can edit productively in other areas. There are plenty of areas and articles that have nothing to do with the area of your topic ban, and which require attention: I suggest you engage with some of them. Vanamonde (talk) 12:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dailey78. 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]

Hello, Dailey78. 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]