User talk:RTRimmel

Welcome to Wikipedia!
Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you have any questions about Wikipedia, feel free to leave me a message on my talk/chat page or by typing   at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages to help you. The left column contains tutorials and introductory pages while the right shows ways to help out Wikipedia.

Additional Tips:
 * Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes ( ~ ). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The [[Image:Button sig2.png]] button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.


 * If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.


 * If you'd like to tell us about yourself and meet other new users, be sure to introduce yourself at our new user log.


 * Also check out the Adopt-a-User program that is designed to help out inexperienced users with Wikipedia by pairing them up with a knowledgeable editor.

'''Again, welcome! :)'''   Rise Above The Vile   02:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Bushism
You may have a point there. The Bush Dinasty may produce a new Heir to The American Throne and he maybe worsest than Bush. But I do not know, if anyway can be as bad as him, even his offsprings..:) Igor Berger (talk) 02:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Democrats lied about WMD, not Bush
You had no right to take what I said off of the talk page for George W. Bush. You probably did it just because you are a democrat. I am not pushing an opinion, I am pushing to put what really happened on the main page. Democrats go really negative on Republicans because there are lots of people out there like you. Go back, read, and do research about the war in Iraq. The WMD was not the only given reason. In fact, it was not one of the reasons. Democrats lied and framed it on Bush because they are so mad at him because of how popular he was. Don't defend the democrats here, they will say or do anything in order to get elected. 216.93.231.149 (talk) 22:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Continue living in your dream world. It sounds nice there.  I'd like a flying unicorn if you can find one. RTRimmel (talk) 03:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, and cite something reliable that that explains your viewpoint. I couldn't find anything, but I only spent an hour or so looking.  All the sources I found laid the blame on Bush (not the republican, just Bush).  RTRimmel (talk) 03:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not dreaming! I don't have a dream world asshole. What you need to do is read as many quotes as possible that make claims about WMD. Some democrats include John Kerry, John Edwards, and Ted Kennedy. Go to www.saveamericans.com. Just go research the claims. It is not that hard. 216.93.231.149 (talk) 01:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * ... So wait, we'll ignore such people as Colin Powell, Dick Cheney, Rice, and that Bush character concerning WMD's, (over 1000 mentions of WMD from these totally honest politicians in the 3 months prior to the invasion) but we'll pay attention to a non-existant web site?  Or even more fun, we have Senators taking their information from the CIA/FBI/NSA concerning these weapons that were largely manipulated by President Bush and the white house, and then blaming them for misquoting information that has been proven to be incorrect when it was given to them after a full investigation which the white house stone walled for years?  So in short you are telling me to ignore the OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE, up to an including the things that I saw with my own eyes during the build up to the war, that are a matter of public record, and then take the statements of a few assorted senators and that completely countermands is... further, you are ignoring the fact that most of the Republican senators were also on-board the WMD claims, yet I notice you've ignored this despite near 100% support from them, to exclusively blame the Democrats and thats NOT pov.  Yup, make sure the unicorn is bright blue and make sure he talks like Elvis.  The problem you'll have here is that I HAVE researched the subject and you are living in a grotto full of Pixies and Magical Unicorns.  RTRimmel (talk) 02:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

No, you did not go back and read state of the union addresses or concerns that had nothing to do with WMD. Stop making up nonsense such as me owning magical unicorns. You really need to go back and read about the war. The WMD was not the only given reason. You probably don't believe because Bush is not a good speaker. True, I can admit to that. Bush is not a good speaker and he doesn't explain things well. He still was not the one who manipulated a WMD threat.


 * Lets look at reasons, real quick. The US's official reason according to the Iraq resolution was to remove "a regime that developed and used weapons of mass destruction, that harbored and supported terrorists, committed outrageous human rights abuses, and defied the just demands of the United Nations and the world" So you are right, not that I ever disputed the additional points but don't let that stop you.  Of course, they were no long developing and did not have any effective WMD's and their harboring and support of terrorists is pure fiction.  I don't suppose I would know where anyone in congress would have gotten the idea that Iraq was a regime that developed and used weapons of mass destruction.  They must have pulled it out of the air.  Its a shame there wasn't an [iraq resolution] passed or something that discussed this.  That would defiantly prove that the Democrats were in on it, if like say 61% of them voted against it and the Republicans knew nothing with only 7 of them voting against it.  I can certainly see why the Democrats were in on it and deserve the lion's share, nay... all of the blame for the Weapons of Mass destruction fiasco, unless there was a political party that voted in higher numbers to authorize the resolution.

Politicians go negative because it works. It works because there are lots of people out there like you. Take WMD. 1. Degraded chemical weapons were found that were leftover from the Iran-Iraq War. 2. There is photographic evidence that Saddam Hussein shipped something into Syria before the 2003 invasion. The CIA might know what it was, but they can't tell us. It probably was not WMD, since it was proven after the invasion that Saddam did not have any WMD at the time. 3. WMD was not the only given reason for going to war. Like I already said, go back and read the 2002 and 2003 state of the union addresses. Look for other reasons for war. 4. The political ploy is called "framing the discussion". It works well. Some people will say and do anything to win. 216.93.231.149 (talk) 03:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC) Read this. [] Also, go to www.saveamericans.com. Who was exaggerating that there were WMD? 216.93.231.149 (talk) 03:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, George Bush mentioned WMD's over 1000 times during the build up to the war. So did many republicans in congress.  So your framing the debate in such a way that it is a Democratic blunder in congress is, on its face, totally ridiculous. Look, I'm done listening to your poorly though out ramblings.  If you want to actually try to post this crap, I'd suggest going to [Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War] where they will undoubtedly mock you further concerning your ... viewpoint.  If you can find some traction there, then put it into the Bush article as there are experts on the subject there and while I've been easily countering your inane points, they can and will totally destroy your argument.  Oh, and saveamericans is so blatantly partisan you will not be able to use it as a source here on wikipedia... it lies through omission to prove its points and its pathetic.  Please ride your magical unicorn over there, I'm not wasting any more time discussing this with you.  RTRimmel (talk) 11:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

From wiki answers: "The Democratic quotes below are taken from two points in history, first just prior to December 17, 1999 concerning UNSCR 1284 which Created - "the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspections Commission (UNMOVIC) to replace previous weapon inspection team (UNSCOM)." Everyone in Congress demanded Saddam allow weapons inspectors in, and he did but, Saddam limited their access.

The second set of Democratic quotes are from around the time of the second UN Security Consol referendum Friday, November 8, 2002: "The United Nations Security Council approved a resolution that demanded unfettered access for U.N. inspectors to search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq." This time everyone in Congress demanded Saddam allow weapons inspectors and not limit their access and he did despite claims to the contrary.

Moreover, the second set of Democratic quotes, around the November 2002 date, were based on the intelligence as presented to them by the Bush Administration who omitted the fact that our own CIA as well as German Intelligence did not believe curveball when they submitted the case for war to the US Congress and curveball was one sole source of mobile weapons laboratories and without any corroborate. Congress was not told the whole truth. "

I find it odd given all of the quotes that are available from republicans that none are posted. Its like it was a blatant partisan attack designed to confuse the sheep. It even says that in the article. But continue believing poorly researched points, the republicans are counting on you not having a faint clue come november.

Things I want to remember
Yep. It's called context. I don't get to decide what is relevant or not, the reliable sources do. "Obama smoking" on Google, gets 10,900,000 hits, while "Bush shoe throwing" gets about 1,200,000. So, you say tomatoes, and I say reddish, roundish, fruit-like, veggie. Oh, and for the record, I am not an unbiased editor, in fact I am a very POV editor, but I do my best to ensure that the articles reflect NPOV. That's all that's required. Newguy34 (talk) 17:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Declaration of War
You are correct in the political reasoning. However, by definition and by the Consititution that is not correct. That still does not mean that Roosevelt could declare war. No President by Article II and I of the Consitution can declare war, only Congress. President's can, through the power of CinC and the War Powers Act, move troops at their discretion. However, the funding and allowance comes only from Congress after a period of time. Thus the statement that Bush declared war is incorrect. All you have to do is read the Constitution and the War Powers Act to understand. Congress still has an obligation and power to move troops if need be.76.177.224.238 (talk) 02:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Also go to the current administration page at the White House. Look at the defense agenda. Seems pretty hawkish for an administration that felt Bush was too hawkish.76.177.224.238 (talk) 02:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * So my point that if the President ignores the Constitution the checks and balances built into it, he can do stuff he's technically not allowed to do and Presidents have done it in the past? Okay.

George Bush
Hi! I know you don't like Bush, but there was no reason for you to revert my edit. I added AFTER-TAX median household income DATA and you changed it to PRE-TAX one. Don't pretend that you fail to understand the difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sasha best (talk • contribs) 13:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You really want to do this? Fine:  You'll note that "Median after-tax real household income isn’t commonly reported.  But, it can be estimated by simply running the reported median real household income through each year’s tax tables." Because despite the fact that he's building it up, brushing past Mean Real Houshold income and Real Median Income,both of which many economists consider to be more relevant than After-Tax, so he can brush down to median after-tax because its the ONE number that looks decent, and 2% isn't great its just not negative.  In short, After Tax is hardly worthwhile because we use a graded tax scale so not everyone is paying the same amount of taxes, so if you had a 2% increase in post tax income... that's going to help the upper class MUCH MORE than the lower classes, because they had much larger proportional drops in their taxes, and so most credible economists don't use it because its disingenuous, but to explain that properly you'd have to say that the upper classes had a much larger tax decrease than that the lower classes which you don't.


 * You'll notice that he doesn't mention much about the wealthy and their tax benefits but does mention the tax breaks to the less well to do. Gee... I wonder why.


 * Further, you can't read a census, why did you dig up an economics professor's opinion on the economy? Not because its easier to be certain.  And you selectively quoting only the after-tax median income is silly on its face.  RTRimmel (talk) 21:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, actually Bush lowered taxes not only for upper classes. Here's a quote from the source I gave:"While the Bush tax plan is often demonized as being just for the rich, it also includes substantial benefits for folks in the lowest tax brackets. For example,  the low bracket marginal income tax rate was cut from 15% to 10%, the personal exemption allowance has been increased from $2,900 in 2000  to $3,300 in 2006, and  the standard deduction has been increased from $10,200 in 2000 to $13,000 in 2006 (for joint filing married couples)." So what you say is just populism. And, finally, I can't understand why this data makes you so nervous.Sasha best (talk) 12:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Nervous isn't the best word to describe it. More like incredulous.  First off, Bush's tax plan's overwhelming advantage was towards the wealthy.  "Though tax cuts for the rich were bigger than those for other groups, the wealthiest families paid a bigger share of total taxes. That is because their incomes have climbed far more rapidly, and the gap between rich and poor has widened in the last several years. " "Put another way: rich families were the undisputed winners from President Bush’s tax cuts, but people in the bottom half of the earnings scale were not paying much in taxes anyway."  Which is fine, but don't get on the high horse of the tax cuts were great for the lower classes.  They did not generate the jobs promised.  The contributed to the economic crisis.  They increased the national debt.  And after tax median income isn't really an economics term that is stable.  Depending on your math I've seen it be from -3% to +3%, Ken's is 2% I believe.  You need to qualify that in the article.  RTRimmel (talk) 14:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

You should read this article up to the end. Maybe then your opinion about tax cuts will change.Sasha best (talk) 09:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I prefer to read unbias articles, actually. Tax cuts, at least in Bush's form, seem to have failed pretty badly.  I could cite higher unemployment, the wage decay, the concentration of wealth to the upper class or any other assortment of articles that say they aren't all that good.  But keep towing the party line while not paying attention to the obvious.  Again, in RL we are in a recession and the Bush Tax Cuts didn't prevent that, in fact that amplified its effects significantly. The problem is that if you are right and the tax cuts were good and everyone benefited... what happened?  RTRimmel (talk) 12:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

So, you  didn't even bother to read it. Well,do as you wish. You ask me: what happened? I will answer: crisis of consumption system happened. Crisis of banks that gave money to people who couldn't pay it back for the sake of short-term profits. Crisis of people that took these money without clear understanding of their financial position. Tax cuts don't have anything to do with it. In fact, in many countries situation's now worse without them. Sasha best (talk) 12:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I bothered to read it. Its another boo-hoo supply side economists who is trying to justify his beliefs when its obvious that his philosophy isn't as spot on as he hoped.  I've read dozens of such articles, each omits so many facts that its hard to take them seriously, but Reynolds' head is so far up his ass that its hard to take him seriously. As for your opinions, Crisis of consumption:Giving money to people causes problems?  Crisis of banks: Under regulated banks causing problems, which supply side economics doesn't even allow for if you ask Alan Greenspan.  Crisis of people: People with too much money spend it on stupid things they can't afford.  So giving more people more money causes problems.  Tax cuts, under that line of logic, actually cause more problems.  And many countries problems are directly related to our economy being in the crapper so that's not a valid comparison either.  I'm not saying that high taxes are good, by any stretch, but Bush's tax cuts were badly applied and caused some significant problems... as made obvious by the economy's present state.

By saying "Crisis of people that took these money without clear understanding of their financial position." I meant bank credits to people who couldn't afford to pay it back. Don't blame crisis on tax cuts. They are not the reason of it.Sasha best (talk) 11:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * So banks need to be more heavily regulated, the bane of supply side economics which also prescribes that tax cuts are good most, but yet not all, of the time. I'm arguing that the entire supply side theory is flawed as made obvious by its application to a strong us economy followed by a collapse of a strong us economy.  It worked well under regan, but under Bush it died, hence the Bush Tax Cuts failed.  RTRimmel (talk) 04:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Your determination to blame tax cuts for crisis seems strange to me. What do they have to do with bank regulation?Sasha best (talk) 12:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Bush's overall economic policies have everything to do with the crisis. They included tax cuts and extensive deregulation and a hands off mentality that allowed a bad situation to get much much worse.  I don't exclusively blame tax cuts, but Bush's economics policy as a whole which included his poorly developed tax cuts. Right now, Republicans are arguing that more tax cuts are needed to save the economy as opposed to spending, arguing with passion that tax cuts are better.  The problem is that in every historical case a dollar of infrastructure spending equals about $1.59 worth of economy activity and every dollar of tax cuts only generates about $1.02.  Its some sort of crazy Republican tax cuts are the answer to everything disease and it has me worried because the entire supply side argument is failing and they insist on using it.   RTRimmel (talk) 13:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you know that a lion share of money on infrastructure won't be spent until 2010? It's naive to think that spending money on infrastructure will help the economy.Sasha best (talk) 08:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Infrastructure development worked every other time it was tried. That's a better record than, say, tax cuts.  RTRimmel (talk) 11:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Every time? Don't make me laugh. Examples?Sasha best (talk) 18:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, I didn't require examples from you when you were spouting out that tax cuts make jobs and are good for the economy. I guess you could go back to the last set of tax cuts passed by Bush which really hel... well, didn't do an... well... probably didn't mostly cause the economy to collapse.  And as for examples, New Deal, you can also check out the extensive government spending prior and during WW2, Vietnam and other major conflicts.  Plus of course the massive benefits the US gained from the Interstate Highway system, which aside from generating millions of jobs, tied together the US economy like never before allowing us to dominate economically for generations.  So ya, like every time a major infrastructure project occurred there has been an economic boon.  Notice that Alaska was really trying to get that Bridge to Nowhere?  Ever wonder why?  400M = about 13k well paying jobs for 3-4 years, plus you also get a bridge, and the whole economy benefits locally as much of that labor comes from the state.  RTRimmel (talk) 05:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

New Deal? Yes, it required significant government regulation. But, with all my respect to FDR, I don't believe that New Deal helped our economy significantly. Moreover, spending during FDR years was much less than it is now. I think it's silly to increase it even more.Sasha best (talk) 08:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, that's your opinion and a great number of experts disagree with it. Check out Keynesian Economics, that theory has been revisited recently and appears to be more functional than Supply Side.  It recommends low tax rates and infrastructure development for getting out of this.  And if you look at history, the New Deal did help out the economy significantly.  All of the numbers that sucked during Bush's tenure were pretty good to very good during the new deal, so I think you've been listening to too much conservative talk radio with all due respect.  So there are competing theories as to what to do, and all the theories involving tax cuts are really looking at themselves because Bush's economic policy performed so terribly. At that it did is not in dispute at all. RTRimmel (talk) 12:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

What numbers were good during New Deal? Do you really think any numbers were good then? And, anyway, Obama program involves much more spending. Sasha best (talk) 11:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I could quote stats for you but as you've demonstably proven you don't like numbers that disprove you points so I'll just leave it at 73% of economists thought that the New Deal helped,again econmists who mostly thought that Bush's financial policy would cause problems, and the 27% who didn't were mostly supply side economists... you know who said that Bush's Financial Policy would be good for the US economy. I'd mention the Financial Crisis of 2008 or the current labor statistics but again, numbers that disprove  you tend to be ignored.  And much more spending in absolute dollar terms.  As a percentage of GDP no.  Good try though.  I call that an apples to oranges comparison.  1 dollar of 1930's money being not equal to 1 dollar 2009 money.  And we are talking about Bush's policiies, not Obama's.  Just because I really dislike Bush and disapprove of how he ran the country does not mean I instantly love Obama.  RTRimmel (talk) 15:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. "All of the numbers that sucked during Bush's tenure were pretty good to very good during the new deal" No numbers were good during New Deal. If you think otherwise quote numbers that were better in 1930's than they are now. Sasha best (talk) 17:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You do realize that you haven't answered virtually any of my questions involving hard numbers so I'm not going to bother to answer this one. You can read, go find it out for yourself. RTRimmel (talk) 22:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you think I have nothing more to do?Sasha best (talk) 10:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * YOu seem to find plenty of time to post nonconstructive things on my talk page, you could spent that time trying to enlighten yourself instead. RTRimmel (talk) 14:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Look you condescending SOB
Look you $#@%&! I am a "him" too, but I wasn't sure about you so I didn't want to offend! [please note that all the previous comments are an attempt at humor; no seriousness implied]. In all seriousness, I know you don't take a kind view to the former president (you say your view is "fair", I say it's "unkind"), but your willingness to discuss this matter re: Bush's ANG service from a neutral viewpoint is appreciated. I don't have time to make a fancy Barnstar for you, so just a plain ol' thanks. Now, back to disagreeing with just about everything you have to say ;) QueenofBattle (talk) 15:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * But why QUEEN? I know you enjoy your skirts and all with the banner star on your page... but seriously man.  I know its a good old fashioned infantry thingy and I appreciate it but my default mindset is to call queen's girls... and since you're a man... does that make you a Drag... well, I'm gonna stop now.  I'd have gone Manly Queen of Battle or something, Queen of battle that's a dude or whatever.  Obviously you like punishment.  :P RTRimmel (talk) 11:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't sweat it; if someone doesn't like it they can come see me about it. And, if they are not man enough to confront me directly about it, or not smart enough to understand that the "queen" part of Queen of Battle refers to the queen in chess (which is the one piece that can move quickly in any direction), then they are a waste of my time.  And, I am of Scottish descent, am an infantryman, and like to drink scotch, so that means I don't mind getting a little toasty and fighting just for the hell of it.  Now, as to your other suggested usernames, I will take them under advisement.  I just don't know how they'd look on my business card...  QueenofBattle (talk) 13:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Economic policy of the George W. Bush administration‎
Since you seem to have a passing interest in GWBush, your opinion would be appreciated at Talk:Economic policy of the George W. Bush administration‎, under the section 'Biasness'. I attempted to diffuse an edit war, but have no real knowledge on the subject matter. It seems to be a sourcing issue, so you might have some insight. Thanks, -- auburn pilot  talk  00:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Short of it is that the numbers she is quoting are crap. Its like saying a computer program is more advanced because the number of lines of code in it is greater than its competitor.  That may very well be true, but the number of lines doesn't govern this.  Veronique's principle argument that an increased number of pages in the Federal Registry means more regulation would only be correct if new regulations could not countermand previous regulations, which they did.  And a more through investigation reveals that Bush was much more of a deregulator than anything else when it came to the Federal Registry.  RTRimmel (talk) 02:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

George W. Bush
I knew I shouldn't have kept feeding him when he went off the deep end.--Louiedog (talk) 15:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Now you are quoting me? I'm honored
But, leave it to a liberal elitist to take my quote out of context. Some kids never learn. QueenofBattle (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I apologize for using your words in context to prove that your are a naughty little POV pusher, I know facts have a bias against you and I respect your ability to ignore them in all cases when they get around your narrow worldview. Changing your name to get around your old history littered with POV pushes is just a good example... of well POV pushing and I appriciate the lenghts you go to seperate reality from whatever it is you do. I'd argue that calling me a dick and a wanker on your userpage is actually quite a bit more childish, but you never do anything wrong so I don't see how pointing out the obvious irony of your statement is worthwhile.  Have a nice life and good riddance.  RTRimmel (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Waah, waah. Umm, wanker, you forgot the part of my quote that continued with "Oh, and for the record, I am not an unbiased editor, in fact I am a very POV editor, but I do my best to ensure that the articles reflect NPOV. That's all that's required."  Remember, your mommy told you that "cheaters never prosper."  And, exactly how is changing my username, but publishing the old one on my user page trying to "get around...[my] old history littered with POV pushes..."?  Do you really think about this stuff before you make it up or do you edit under the influence?!  QueenofBattle (talk) 18:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So you are a biased editor. Cool.  Thanks for admitting that.  Well, I've had enough of your pointless personal attacks, so you have fun doing whatever it is you do when you aren't pov pushing all over the place.  Queen, I honestly think you actually are of the opinion that I care what you think because at one point, I did.  Given your general behaviour over the past several months... meh.  You used to be a decent editor, but you lost that.  You've devolved into a petty bully and honestly, I'm entirly unimpressed with you at this point.  So feel free to continue with your childish antics.  Feel free to sully what little remains of your credibility.  I'm just going to turn the other cheek here.  I'm done with you.  Have a nice life.  Maybe when you unretire again you'll find whatever it was you were missing, but for now you need this break.  RTRimmel (talk) 01:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

WQA notice
Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. QueenofBattle (talk) 07:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am going to remove all my comments (past and present) from your talk page. Let's just end this silliness?  Are you OK with that?  QueenofBattle (talk) 15:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll take care of it when I archive later. RTRimmel (talk) 18:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, good luck to you. QueenofBattle (talk) 18:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)