User talk:Sirmouse

About me

Hello:

I am a chess player and teacher who contributes what I can to chess-based articles. I am always seeking to add relevant citations and new sources.

As I am an amateur when it comes to formatting, please let me know if and when a citation or source meets the necessary requirements for website publication.

Thank you kindly.

Sincerely,

Sir Mouse

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to William Lombardy may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Many in the chess community think that Jack Collins was Bobby Fischer's coach (as well as a coach for William Lombardy, [[Robert Byrne]], [[Donald Byrne]], and Raymond Weinstein.<

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Sirmouse, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Sirmouse! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Writ Keeper (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Cut and past move of John W. Collins

You performed a cut and paste move of John W. Collins, and left the page messed up. See WP:MOVE for an explanation of the reasons why cut and paste moves are not done, and also to learn the correct way to move a page. If you haven't seen this before it isn't knowledge that anyone is born with, so the procedure is new to everyone at first. I don't think your new page name is really the best either. I undid your edit because the page seems OK at its current title, but if a move is needed we usually disambiguate chess players by adding a suffix, as in Frank Marshall (chess player). Quale (talk) 16:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I don't think you understood. You must not perform cut and past moves, but you did it again to John W. Collins. You also left the page empty, which is not what is done when a page is moved. Please don't do it again. Moves must be made using the move button or tab. If that is not possible, usually because the destination page is occupied, you should request the move at WP:RM so that an administrator can make the move. In this case you may want to propose the move on the article talk page (Talk:John W. Collins) to get a consensus, then an administrator can make the move. See WP:MOVE for complete instructions, and ask for help if you don't understand. Quale (talk) 23:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Jack Collins (chess player)

Hello Sirmouse,

It seems to me that an article you worked on, Jack Collins (chess player), may be copied from http://www.indiana.edu/~liblilly/lilly/mss/index.php?p=collins. It's entirely possible that I made a mistake, but I wanted to let you know because Wikipedia is strict about copying from other sites.

It's important that you edit the article and rewrite it in your own words, unless you're absolutely certain nothing in it is copied. If you're not sure how to fix the problem or have any questions, there are people at the help desk who are happy to assist you.

Thank you for helping build a free encyclopedia! MadmanBot (talk) 22:27, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, 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 necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 13:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give John W. Collins a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen. Thank you. Hut 8.5 14:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bobby Fischer. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Aoidh (talk) (formerly User:SudoGhost) 14:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bobby Fischer may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• not his -- he had come across it in the monograph by the Soviet master Alexander Nikitin] in a footnote."<ref name="Plisetsky & Voronkov 2005, pp. 225–226">Plisetsky & Voronkov

Thanks, BlueMoonset (talk) 03:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to John W. Collins may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Many in the chess community think that Jack Collins was Bobby Fischer's coach (as well as a coach for William Lombardy, Robert Byrne, [[Donald Byrne]], and [[Raymond Weinstein]].<

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:36, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

William Lombardy GA nomination

Sirmouse, I noticed that the William Lombardy article you nominated for Good Article status has a "more footnotes" template on it.

Basically, if that template is accurate, then the article will not be eligible to be a Good Article, since adequate inline sourcing is one of the required criteria. So, if there is still more inline sourcing to be done, I wanted to recommend that you withdraw the nomination (just revert the addition of the GA nominee template) until it is ready. Also, just so you know going forward, the "subtopic" field in the GA nominee template needs to be filled in; for Chess-related topics, the proper subtopic is "Sports and recreation", which I've added to your Bobby Fischer nomination. Feel free to let me know if you have any questions about such nominations, or you can check the instructions page at WP:GAN/I. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, 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 necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 14:53, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Some writing tips I've picked up

Starting a sentence: "However, [...]" is considered poor writing style by some of the expert British writers on this site. FYI. Plus there's nothing wrong with word "but" in place of word "however" (in fact it has its advantages). Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't know. I'm an American Idiot. lol Gotcha.

I'm American too. Thanks for your good-faith edits changing "However, ..." to "But, ...", but, that is not what I meant. (There's little difference between those. One of the advantages of "but" over "however" is that usually a comma can be dropped, and the fewer commas the better according to the expert British writers here. For example: "But I told you that before!" is a sensible sentence without comma, but "However I told you that before!" is ambiguous without a comma, so needs a comma that "but" did not require.)

I guess what I'm asking is, that you discontinue changing existing sentence structures *to* the "However, ..." (or "But, ...) format, since it just means work for me to clean it up if the article wants to go to GA/FA some day. The best route when in doubt I think is the structure "[Text], however, [additional text]" which is considered better than introducing sentence with "However, [text]." (That might seem arbitrary at first, but it's really not. You don't wanna introduce a sentence with a cautionary pause or contrary fact, when the reader at that point can't fathom why or what. That is why I believe the introductory "However, ..." is deemed poor form. There can be other reason too, such as implying contrary information follows, when many times that's mistaken.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

There are currently 11 "But, ..." structures in the article, that is too many (there s/b 0). It will take some time for me to eradicate them out. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:16, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm half done (will continue later). (On a couple of the edits [re passport revocation, and fugitive status] I noticed you've been edit-warring with me. Please don't revert again, take to article Talk instead if you have a disagreement over that text.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:02, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the insight. I have no intention to edit war with anyone. Let me know any thoughts or concerns you may have. I am more than willing to fix anything you want me to fix. Thank you. Sirmouse (talk) 19:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done. BTW here's an interesting discussion what I was referring. Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:50, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Good read. Thank you for the link to the discussion. Sirmouse (talk) 15:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Section headings

Plz put back all the sec heads you removed in Bobby today. Thx. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Done. Sorry about that. Didn't notice that it changes the subheadings in the table of contents section....

It changes the font size in the article body as well. p.s. Remember to use ~~~~ and indenting on Talk page posts. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bobby Fischer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Byrne (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) 11:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Revmoving authorlink=

[1] Are you sure that's the way it's done? MoS talks about wlinking first-occurrences, but that guideline was meant for body text, to reduce annoyance when reading it. The Refs section is not *read* the same way as body text is. You seem to be extending the MoS guideline to Refs section. Those entries w/o authorlink just look "incomplete" to me. I don't see redundant author links as irritating or interfering with research, like you suggested. Are you making up your own guideline here? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the Bibliography sub-section of the Refs Section is not *read* the same way. I believe this is the reason that it is generally considered to be okay to have someone who is linked in the body and then linked again in the Bibliography sub-section. The reason I made the linking non-duplicative was so that there wasn't a phallanx of "blue" and that it would, therefore, be easier to read. It seems to me that this is the format that is used on some other GA pages, which is what I based the format on:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington#References

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln#References

Disambiguation link notification for November 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited William Lombardy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Saint Louis (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) 09:08, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles with the most references

I just came across this page and you made the most recent edit and I was wondered whether you just collected the updated information as you came across it on Wikipedia or is there some way to search for articles with many references? Thanks for any information you can provide! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I updated a number of the articles that were currently on the list. I do not know if there are other articles that have over 500 references or 400 references. I haven't come across them, so I don't know. If you can find some and add them, it will be greatly appreciated. With any list, it is very time-consuming plugging in all the most recent updates, so the more people working on such a page the better Wikipedia will become, I believe. Thank you for asking. Sirmouse (talk) 03:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bobby Fischer

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bobby Fischer you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ChrisGualtieri -- ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bobby Fischer

The article Bobby Fischer you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Bobby Fischer for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ChrisGualtieri -- ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bobby Fischer

The article Bobby Fischer you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Bobby Fischer for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ChrisGualtieri -- ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but Bobby Fischer was not promoted to GA. a vandal edited the code on the talk page causing the bot to send this message. I apologize for the confusion. I am impressed with your GA nomination. It's an impressive article and I'm sorry you're up against the impossibly high standards of some GA reviewers. I wish you luck in the future. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

As much as I disagree with having multiple broken refs and one to a spam site as an external link, I think it fair to say that the article as a whole was good - I simply decided to get off my butt and fix the tiny issues and pass it. I don't think I am being unreasonable, but I wanted that article passed for months - months. There is no point in drama over it. I've passed it to GA status now. Congrats. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of World Chess Championship 1972

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article World Chess Championship 1972 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of O1oface -- O1oface (talk) 18:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of World Chess Championship 1972

The article World Chess Championship 1972 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:World Chess Championship 1972 for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 11:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about your departure

Another editor let me know that you're no longer actively involved with Wikipedia, so I thought I would drop by to say that I enjoyed the article you nominated, World Chess Championship 1972. Thanks for your contributions, and I hope you are able to return to editing at some point in the future. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:03, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for taking so long to get back to you. I must have missed your note in my page for some reason. Thank you for the compliments. I appreciate it. We'll see what the future holds. I hope all is well with you. All best! Sirmouse (talk) 04:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of World Chess Championship 1972

The article World Chess Championship 1972 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:World Chess Championship 1972 for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 00:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Lifesign?

Hi Sirmouse. I'm acquaited w/ your frustrations that led to your retirement. ProjChess IMO is a passive group (single operators w/ rare exception) where wiki-term "community" doesn't reasonably apply. I've criticized two or three of your edits, but really that was detail stuff (style and/or emphasis) which could be worked out in collaboration. (I think you were seeking same; me too in areas of sincere interest.) I've quit editing orthochess articles, but might make exception re Fischer-related articles, if I had someone to collaborate with. What do you think? Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the message. I just logged on now after months of being off of wikipedia. I am currently working on a chess-related documentary. We'll see what the future holds. All best! Sirmouse (talk) 19:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I recently purchased Bobby Fischer Against the World documentary and watched it several times. (What did you think of it?)

Take a look at these viewership spikes for September 1 anniversary of Fischer becoming world champion: World Chess Championship 1972, Bobby Fischer. Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner. I don't really log on too often, seeing as I am no longer editing.

I saw the documentary about a year ago. It presents a partially true story of what happened. Interestingly, they didn't interview the people who knew Fischer best (Joan Targ passed away, as did Regina Fischer, and they wanted Lombardy to be interviewed without paying him; there was another fellow that knew him well, but for some reason he was not interviewed either). I don't believe that Fischer ever went "mad." As Brady says, he was just "angry." And rightfully so. The U.S. wanted to arrest him for playing a chess game. This is absurd. Fischer was a little paranoid because of the Russians and I believe he was being realistic in his assessments. I do believe he overworked his brain, however, (one can kind of do that if one is always playing over the historical chess games, and playing through endgames, all the time) and that allowed negative thoughts and conspiracy theories to creep in later in his life (i.e., his radio interviews). My opinion is that Fischer needed something spiritual to keep him grounded, but because he wound up being persuaded and betrayed by the Worldwide Church, he wound up tossing out anything and everything religious or spiritual, leading him down the road of being perceived as an "anti-semite." Just my two cents... The viewership spikes are intriguing. I think the "Pawn Sacrifice" movie is partly responsible for that spike. Perhaps it being a "this date in history" listing on wikipedia. I haven't seen the film yet, so who knows whether it is truly accurate, or just dramatic. We shall see. Hope all is well with you. Sirmouse (talk) 19:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Did you notice in the last Brady bio the Icelandic professional psychologist's (who was responsible for Fischer's leg rubdowns and probably accounts for the "human touch" Fischer quote) opinions? I wasn't aware of the Pawn Sacrifice film, thanks for mentioning. Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I did notice that. That was interesting to see. I can't say too much about it, except to the extent that I believe it may be an accurate assessment, from what I remember being said in the interview in the documentary. "Rumor" has it that the people that took care of him received a little bit of money when Fischer passed away. Any which way you slice it, the USCF didn't do much to back Fischer for playing after the 1972 World Championship, so I can understand his frustrations with the world at large. It seems that part of what made Fischer so exciting for the chess world was his knowledge of chess, precision of play, attacking style, relentless work ethic, tough-guy Brooklyn personality, and, of course, his phenomenal chess record against his contemporaries. He let little get in the way of what he wanted to accomplish. To him, I believe, chess was art. I hope he and his games will not be forgotten as history progresses. I hope all is well with you and that you have survived the Holidays. Sirmouse (talk) 04:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree with all you wrote. Yes, Fischer is an inspiration. (One of my favorite quotes: "Too many times, people don't try their best. They don't have the keen spirit; the winning spirit.") Fischer (like the Beatles in that superlative time - late 60s early 70s) gave us his best. (And again, 20 years later!) By contrast, Anand sort of turns my stomach. (I mean, look how in game 9 of the 2014 match he played for a draw as Black. In a limited match where draws count, and being a point down ... what do you think Fischer would have thought of that decision!?) Good to hear from you, and Happy New Year. p.s. Sorry couldn't reply sooner - I'd been blocked until now. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Anand met Fischer in 2006 and said "he hadn't lost his sharpness for chess" (see: http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2011/dec/02/vishy-anand-small-talk-interview). Fischer was willing to walk out of tournaments and matches if the conditions were not right. Every game was life or death for Fischer. I don't think he would have thought much of anyone who played for draws. He was taught to always play for a win. Fischer did not like playing the waiting game the way modern players do. It's like watching a boxing fight and no one wants to throw the first punch. Anand wasn't obsessed with chess the way Fischer was. It's not the best thing to be obsessed, but Fischer did have an extraordinary knowledge of the game and a work ethic that I don't feel today's players embody. It shows in their play, despite ratings of 2800+....Sirmouse (talk) 23:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes. (Except for one thing - the kind of drive Fischer had to win, is something that can be talked about, but not "taught".) Fischer put his idea re playing for wins on the line by conditioning title matches as draws don't count. IHTS (talk) 04:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the internal drive to want to do something can never be taught. But, the attitude and mindset of always playing for a win (as well as staying ahead on the clock) is something that was shown to him and a philosophy he adopted. The draws not counting was paying tribute to the 1886 Steinitz-Zukertort match conditions. Fischer was the champion. As the champion, the champion chooses the conditions. Fischer's 9-9 clause was not, in my opinion, unreasonable, because for a challenger to be declared world champion, he would have to beat the current world champion decisively. Sirmouse (talk) 05:24, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sirmouse, just finished watching Pawn Sacrifice for first time, quite liked it (even tho many details were distorted for reg moviegoers). My fav line was Ivanovich in the taxi after his loss: "It was like ... having a building fall on me." :) I think they s/ have included the Bronstein draw for add'l dramatic development, but no. :( Was well-cast/acted I thought; what did you think of Sarsgaard's portrayal of Lombardy? Happy New Year, too. Sincere, IHTS (talk) 08:40, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, IHTS. Sorry for taking so long to get back to you. Maybe pen and parchment would be faster. lol Good ol' pony express.... The movie Pawn Sacrifice has its moments, but doesn't really understand its subject that well. It is true that Bobby was upset at the preferential treatment of Reshevsky, and he was upset about his family situation, but he was not schizophrenic or paranoid in the 1950s, 60s, 70s. Sarsgaard is a good actor, but he does not acurately portray Lombardy. There are videos of Lombardy on YouTube and it presents a different personality than what is seen in the film. I went over a few games that Fischer and Lombardy played; their playing strength doesn't seem far off, so I don't think that, as Sarsgaard portrays, that Lombardy would be that behind in analyzing with Fischer. Haven't had anytime for Wikpedia editing. Anyway, Happy New Year (2016) to you, too, and also Happy New Year for 2017 and 2018, since, it appears, it has been some time since I have written you. All best in your quest to spread knowledge and insight. Sirmouse (talk) 17:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

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) 17:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Sirmouse. 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)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Sirmouse. 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)

Lombardy and Fischer

I have posted comments in the talk pages of William Lombardy and Bobby Fischer, which you may wish to comment on. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:29, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Sirmouse. 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)