User talk:Minos P. Dautrieve

Welcome!

Hello, Minos P. Dautrieve, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page provides helpful information for new users - please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on this page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Also, I've left you a reply on my talk page. Happy editing! - Spick And Span ^[Talk]_{[Contributions]} 03:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I get nervous when people start hacking huge pieces out of articles.

I freely admit I may be wrong. Revert if you wish. HalfShadow (talk) 03:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Thank you for your message. It was no problem, the AfD template was broken in some way so I just replaced it with a fresh one and pasted your wording into it. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sourcing

Done. It's on the AFD page, or on my talk page if you don't want to dig that address up. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: My apologies for calling your nomination ridiculous. It actually was not ridiculous. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 22:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Prod removal

See here, here, and here, for starters. This caused quite a stir in the US two years ago. Groupthink (talk) 22:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those citations do not deal with the group, but with the South Dakta ballot initiative. The ballot initiative is probably worth an article on its own, but the group itself has no meaningful existence (which is demonstrated by the tiny number of independent Google hits. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 22:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The initiative was sponsored by the group, so I disagree, but feel free to open an AfD. Groupthink (talk) 22:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, and that's part of my point. The group has no meaningful existence; it's simply a front organization for a small number of crank activists pretending to be a larger group. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 22:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with your second point, but unfortunately, said crank activists managed to gain a lot of traction with the press and the conservative vox populi, especially in the wake of Terri Schiavo's death, and provided talking points to Tom DeLay and company in their heyday. Groupthink (talk) 22:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And therefore any notability attaches to the activists, not to the front groups. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 22:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I agree with that line-of-reasoning. I agree that notability is not inherited, but in this case, I would postulate that the activists and the group are inextricably entangled... but like I said, I wouldn't object to an AfD, and I'll even reserve comment until others have chimed in, because I think you make some valid points. Also, I think it might also be useful to copy this discussion to Talk:J.A.I.L. 4 Judges as it might be of interest to others.Groupthink (talk) 22:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Allen Klein

I wouldn't call the mention of Oldham "losing his battle with drugs" derogatory; it's more of a statement of fact, from things I have read. He was, and it took him awhile to come back. You made an OK edit there, though... and indeed, it isn't really necessary to say Oldham was; it's not pertinent to Klein's history. (I didn't write that part, btw, so I'm not speaking from bias there.) Cheers. Zephyrad (talk) 17:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A problem is picking the right shorthand term to use in BLP deletions, and I'm still working on my edit summaries. Accurate or inaccurate, BLP requires comments like that one to be sourced, even if the statement is accurate and factual. Thanks for the good word here. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 17:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Joachim Koester

I have nominated Joachim Koester, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joachim Koester. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Marlith (Talk) 23:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal

In case you missed it, you got hit by a vandal impersonating you. He's been blocked, and most of the damage removed, but if anything in the future comes up again, feel free to let me know on my talk page for a quick response. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 01:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD of Kevin Weeks

Thanks for checking up about the festival - I could see nothing notable other than that, and had no idea how to confirm the value of the award one way or the other. Your work was much appreciated. - Bilby (talk) 04:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced material

Hi there. I note that you have been removing material of late that is not referenced. I wonder if a more subtle (ie helpful) approach might be to simply add an unreferenced note such as this ^{[citation needed]}? The material you have removed may be true and it may be false, but with a note, it will alert 1) the reader to be cautious in using the info, or 2) an editor to go seek out the fact. With no info at all - ??? Verne Equinox (talk)

Most of the material involved was removed under WP:BLP, which I see as quite explicit in discouraging the use of the ^{[citation needed]} tag with regard to disparaging, derogatory, or otherwise "contentious" statements/claims. I believe that, in the other cases, the statements, even if they were to be sourced, are of such a nature as to be dubious, at best, for inclusion in an encyclopedia, or are merely statements of personal opinion. Perhaps you could provide an example or two where you think these criteria are inappropriately applied? Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 01:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Lar

Hi. I noticed you were unhappy at the Gary Lynch deletion. Rather than sounding off about Lar (who I happen to know is one of the best and fairest admins we have), can I suggest taking it to DRV? This was not a bad-faith deletion, and, while you are free to disagree with Lar's interpretation of policy or his gauging of the consensus, you should refrain from maligning his character as that is not how we work here. Best wishes, --John (talk) 14:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you read Lar's comments, he rather gratuitously described my actions as "deceptive," and followed his comment up with an objectively false mischaracterization of material I had posted. He maligned my character. I questioned his judgment, which I view as a restrained response; he responded with further mischaracterizations. If this rather strange episode is typical of the "best and fairest" at Wikipedia, I doubt that any rational person would have anything to do with this project. Coming to one's friends' defense is in many ways admirable, but I think this is an occasion when it is not so much. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 01:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did read the comments both of you made. I am sorry you didn't like what I said, but I stand by it. Please don't be uncivil; it is possible to disagree without being. Always comment on content and not the contributor. I know it is easier said than done, and in the heat of the moment we can all slip up sometimes; this is to be human. I suggest you move on from your annoyance, and either take the article to DRV, or do something else and forget about it. Best wishes. --John (talk) 04:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments make no sense whatever. Your friend User:Lar, with whom I had no prior contact, personally attacked me as "deceptive" for no reason whatever. When I objected to this, he refused to apologize, retract, or to respond to comments he made on the underlying dispute. Instead, he made further, somewhat subtler, efforts to impugn my character. Now you arrive here, and say that I am uncivil for objecting to his personal attacks. Exctly how did his attack on me amount to commenting on "content and not the contributor," and why does that bother you so much more than my response, which called him nothing worse than "careless"? Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 10:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again: I stand by what I said to you. Move on from your hurt feelings. DRV the article if it's important to you. There is no need to copy messages to my talk page; I have this one watchlisted. --John (talk) 14:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pamlico 140

Just wanted to thank you for raising Pamlico 140 at WP:AN/I - I was planning to do the same, but you managed to beat me to it. I'm glad it was resolved fairly. - Bilby (talk) 02:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notification

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 5#Gary Lynch. --Relata refero (disp.) 16:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK

I will always change something like that on request from an established good-faith editor. I got a little confused and left a message on your page just now, thinking for some reason you had undeleted it yourself, but in fact it was an edit conflict with myself. Sorry if there was any confusion.DGG (talk) 01:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of Israeli apartheid

No problem -- that sounds like an honest mistake. I hope my edit summaries weren't too churlish. CJCurrie (talk) 23:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review

I have posted a question at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Christmas_with_The_Judds_and_Alabama which you may be able to answer. Can you please return to that discussion to answer it? Stifle (talk) 08:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was answered in the comment you responded to. Just cut and paste it out of the allmusic page that you claimed didn't exist. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 20:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I must have my dense hat on this evening. My question was why you listed a deletion review without first asking the admin who deleted the page to reconsider, as the page instructions clearly indicate. I don't see that answered in the post of The Enchantress of Florence, which is the only comment I responded to in that DRV. Stifle (talk) 23:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

October 2008

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Tan | 39 18:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Minos P. Dautrieve (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This block is unjustified because it is not based in policy. The blocking administrator cites the vandalism page, although there is no allegation of vandalism, credible or otherwise. I have been engaged in a rather contentious dispute over the blocking of my spouse, which I believe to have been grossly inappropriate. My comments have centered on policy, and whether it has been appropriately applied. There are no allegations that my comments are not made in good faith. Under the applicable policy, "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism." The blocking adminstrator also alleges that certain unidentified comments on my user page are inappropriate, but there is nothing there which matches his description. The block is completely unfounded. Finally, the blocking administrator was involved in an earlier stage of the dispute with my spouse, and is not at all uninvolved.

Decline reason:

Actually if you take a look in your block log, it is based on this, a derivative of our block policy. Please pardon the error of the above message. On Wikipedia, we block to prevent disruption if enough evidence warrants such an action. What happened here was that your wife was making personal attacks, calling various editors and their edits "stalker's vandalism", stalker", etc. That is a personal attack, an assumption of bad faith, and without any proof provided by you or her that such is an accurate assertion if it is neither of the above, inaccurate. She was warned and did not stop, and she was blocked for disruption, as is allowed by policy. Then you came in and queried endlessly, effectively taking up her role. The proof was in your face, but you engaged in wikilawyering. Please note that on Wikipedia, we follow the spirit of the rules, not the letter of the law, and words are used in their contemporary contexts. We look dimly on wikilawyering here, per the aforementioned reason, and your constant wikilawyering constituted disruption, and you were blocked, again as permitted by policy. Nothing has to be explicitly stated to be an offense, but after being warned of one, one should stop instead of continuing to engage in it. Perhaps it is merely a misunderstanding of our rules culture here (spirit > letter), but consider this an opportunity to acclimate yourself to such and other aspects of the Wikipedia community. — kur ykh 20:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Note to reviewing admin: before making decision, please refer to appropriate AN thread here, and User talk:Gwen Gale's talk page for more background. Tan | 39 18:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another note to reviewing admin, the blocked editor's statement, There are no allegations that my comments are not made in good faith, is not supportable. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that is just inappropriate, Gwen Gale. The statement you cite is not an allegation that I made a comment in bad faith. It is an allegation that I failed to assume good faith with regard to your comments or actions. Those are two entirely different things, and you know it, or should know it. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 19:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has sway both ways and I meant it both ways. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is a unique interpretation of a policy page that is clear on its face, and your claim is unsupported by evidence. It is strange to see an administrator essentially admitting having committed a policy violation, since you say here you did not assume good faith, and use that as a justification for blocking a user. But since you have made the claim, you should support it: tell us which comments were made in bad faith, and why you think so. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 19:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We disagree. Your posts on my talk page speak for themselves. You were clearly trying to bully me, I didn't even bring up WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL until the end of the thread because I didn't want to seem like I was bullying back. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, you equate strong criticism with bullying. That would be a textbook violation of WP:AGF. There is nothing in the comments themseleves that amounts to bullying; otherwise you would cite it. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 20:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that. However, I don't think you're here to build an encyclopedia and I'm about to extend your block to indefinite myself. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF. Speaking of bullying. This is another display of the underlying -- rather than citing evidence or policy, you simply state your own opinion. It's ironic, but unsurprising, that this is essentialy the same criticism of Wikipedian governance that is made in the RFAR that is so often, but inaccurately, decried. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 20:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't, Gwen. His article edits prove otherwise. However, his behavior is disruptive, and a block surely is needed, but not indef. – How do you turn this on (talk) 20:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Layperson comment: see [1] for an arbitration case that Minos P. Dautrieve urged the Arbitration Committee to accept. It was put forward by his wife, apparently. Behaviour surrounding AFDs of living people has been extremely dubious in my view of seeing Minos. This also applies to The Enchantress Of Florence, who brought forward the request (which incidentally, is being rejected by ArbCom.) Both of them need to knock it off. – How do you turn this on (talk) 19:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now this is just a blanket, unsupported allegation of misbehavior. If your comment comment were made in good faith, I would expect to include actual evidence of "dubious" behavior. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 20:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I gave an example. Please re-read my comment. Best wishes, – How do you turn this on (talk) 20:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read your comment. You made a general statement regarding AFDs that is not supported by evidence. I asked for evidence about the AFDs, not the RFAR. I think it is also relevant that many of the comments in the relevant deletion review match up to the arguments I made in the RFAR. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 20:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minos I will extend your block to indefinite if you don't stop wikilawyering. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen, that's really not a reason to indef block someone. If he continues to abuse this talk page, there's other methods that can be used. – How do you turn this on (talk) 21:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilawyering is disruption. If I don't see any hints Minos will stop the disruption, I'll block indefinitely (which is not forever). Gwen Gale (talk) 21:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minos, what exactly is your point throughout all of this? I haven't seen it stated once.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 21:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My point has become this: the block imposed on me is obviously punitive, which itself violates policy, and has been imposed not for any actual violation of Wikipedia policies, but for forcefully disputing the implementation of policy by two administrators. Discussing these matters is certainly not uncivil, nor does arguing such matters amount to "wikilawyering," a term whose apparent consensus meaning should have no application here. The current block is imposed under a policy which, by its terms, has no application here. Elements of this dispute have been running for a long time; User:Lar, who has just weighed in, once told me it was uncivil to "impugn his reasoning" in an dispute. That is the essence of the current dispute; I impugned the reasoning of an administrator who, inter alia, blocked my spouse without allowing her to respond to accusations. As the repeated comments of Gwen Gale and others here indicate, some administrators characterizes policy-based argument as "wikilawyering," which is simply a dressed-up excuse for violating WP:AGF. It is telling that several of those adminstratorshave attacked my response to my initial block notice as "wikilawyering," even though the reviewing administrator pointed out that it was erroneous. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 00:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Er no, I don't think you've quite got the point here yet. Wikipedia is not a legal system, it is a project to build an encyclopedia. There is no due process, and rules, policies, and guidelines are interpreted in the light of what is best for the project, not in a legalistic way. Your approach is excessively strict constructionist and exhibits classic wikilawyering in that you are claiming all sorts of interpretations of things, impugning the motives and statements of others, and failing to heed the advice given you. You need to not be abrasive, and instead be calm, collegial, and accepting of feedback, or you will not succeed here. ++Lar: t/c 04:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Minos, you destroyed your claims of civil discussion when you attempted to bully me into withdrawing my AFD argument by threatening me with disciplinary action. Spitefully picking a prod to remove from my edit list to remove pushes you well into the realm of unacceptable behavior. You really need to avoid anything your wife is involved in, because your tag teaming and joint character assassination are walking the line of being declared a meat puppet. If I'd joined in on your administrative action, I think there's a decent chance you would have been permanently banned for your actions. You seem to respond to everyone who disagrees with you or your wife with malevolent personal attacks, engaging in the most pedantic arguments, and ignoring consensus in favor of any interpretation that will support you. Your wife having been warned about civility repeatedly in the past was overdue for the ban, based on the contempt she showed to everyone who's had the misfortune of crossign her path. She'd have been blocked well before this if it weren't for her habit of removing her warnings.Horrorshowj (talk) 07:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two weeks is plenty really. As I say, there are methods of stopping his wikilawyering other than via a block. – How do you turn this on (talk) 21:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to be uncivil, but really, I believe this is the third time you have stated the same thing. Is there a particular reason you're siding with this user? And what are these methods you speak of, could you please enlighten me? I am not aware of them.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 04:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is because no one seems to be paying the blindest bit of attention to what I say. They could just protect this talk page for the duration of his block. That would prevent any further disruption. And who is saying I'm siding with anyone? I just think an indef block is a bit much right now. – How do you turn this on (talk) 13:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it. I agreed already, but to reiterate, I think letting this ride (or, better, lifting early if Minos shows signs of "getting it" and indicates an intent not to disrupt going forward) is the right thing to do, rather than going to an indef before this one runs its course. I also don't see the need to protect this talk page. Let Minos have his say. As long as Minos isn't doing BLP violations (like another user I was recently involved with) or other similarly serious things, on his talk page there's not an issue. The disruption and incivility and general ornery-ness are confined to this page, so there's not a wider issue. Those not wanting to see it need not pop by. I'll say in general that the page of the blocked user is probably not the best place to debate exactly what needs to be done, that's better done elsewhere, as it can tend to confuse the user (or give them a wedge to wikilawyer with)... ++Lar: t/c 13:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive. So we're always willing to unblock early, if we have reason to beleive that the behaviour patterns are going to change. So far Minos has not indicated he understands why he has been blocked, much less indicate he's ready to change. So, I'd let this block ride out, I think... if after it expires, there is no evidence of intent to contribute meaningfully and collegially, then it would be time to consider extension, but not yet. It is understandably frustrating to be blocked, so editors are in practice given a certain amount of leeway on their own talk page. Within reason. But Minos needs to realise that this is a serious matter, that the issue lies with him (evidenced by unanimous views by everyone else that his behaviour has not been constructive) and that this time out is an opportunity to decide whether he can contribute here productively and collegially, or whether there are other hobbies that may be better suited to his talents and aspirations. ++Lar: t/c 22:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minos, you've been editing here for many months, mostly biographies of living persons, which have by far the keenest needs for strong sourcing and neutral outlook. How can I put this more straightforwardly? You came to my talk page and straight off, began broadly hinting that I had no ethics, that I was not reasonable, that I should be ashamed, that I had "lynched" your wife and a lot more, which is to say, you began the thread on my talk page by framing it as if I was here with not a shred of good faith. Meanwhile, we'd not heard anything from your wife since the block, which was almost up and she never did put up an unblock request. Had she done, acknowledging that she understood why she'd been blocked and that she would honestly try not to do those things again, she would have been swiftly unblocked, happily, by either me or another admin. Now, I've been editing here for years, which in itself doesn't mean all that much, but I bring it up because I've interacted with a few thousand editors and I've learned that whenever someone has started a thread the way you did, they don't understand Wikipedia and are very likely to keep arguing until they can trip someone up on one or two technical points, which can take up hours of someone's donated, volunteer time here. However, Wikipedia is not a court of law, it's a web site with a very forgiving community: Since blocks can be (and often are) lifted on nothing more than a promise from the blocked editor, never mind these blocks are not prison terms or financial penalties but only have to do with allowing edits on a single web site, experienced editors and admins tend to care only about broad sweeps of behaviour and whether or not it helps build the encyclopedia. If unhelpful behaviour carries on, blocks happen. If it stops, blocks get lifted (and are often quickly forgotten). That's all there is to it, mostly. Getting along here does mean you'll need to put up with article content you don't agree with (it happens to me all the time). Instead, if one believes in the pith of the project, with all its faults and messes (welcome to the human race), one sways what one can here and there, with reliable sources, fit writing skills and a willingness to edit with folks one doesn't always agree with, at least in a neutral, civil way, which means skirting the kind of stuff you threw at me on my talk page. Few of us have time for that kind of shite, we're all volunteers. We do, however, have time for the helpful contributions you have made and would still like to welcome you into the fold. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 10:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second what Gwen Gale is saying. Minos, you need to try to get along with other folk better. Consider how you started your conversation with me, after I closed the deletion discussion of Gary Lynch as a delete. It's visible for all to see at User_talk:Lar/Archive_42#Gary_Lynch_deletion. The first words you typed included "appalled", "poor judgement", and "carelessness". That was a complete failure to assume good faith, the very thing you accuse others of. You were quick to read me the riot act. You assumed I was attacking you when I said "deceptive", when all I was saying was that a lot of returns from a search sometiems can deceive one. When I responded amiably, offering to userify the page, and explaining patiently why I decided the way I did, your next post continued to attack. Now, I'm a big boy, a seasoned administrator, and I get that sort of behaviour from disruptive users all the time. But if you want to be considered a valuable contributor who works well with others, you need to actually work well with others. Taking instant umbrage and attacking over and over is not the way to achieve that. If you don't want to work well with others then, as I said before, perhaps you should consider another hobby, because you'll be pigeonholed here as someone that can't successfully contribute. ++Lar: t/c 13:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]