User talk:Flooch

Welcome!

Hello, Flooch, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! TheRingess 06:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children

You actually did very well, so pat yourself on the back. There were a few bits of missing critical plot info, and the wording needed to be heavily tightened in some areas (mainly things dealing with presentation and sentence breaks), but I've seen to all that -- and added what I feel are more logical "act" breaks -- and it all came together really well. I applaud you. I'd been wanting to do it, but wasn't ready to take it on myself. It was far easier once someone had the gears in motion. Great job.

You can check the changes I've made here. Again, great job. Ryu Kaze 21:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ryu, with your help the page is now much better than before. Flooch 06:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

trim time is come

The NTSC-PAL release is here, my friend. I'm ready to trim this bastard down. I'll get us started. Ryu Kaze 20:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, could you look at the AC page and tell me what you think of the trim? I know it doesn't look like it, but the Story section is now actually shorter than FFX's, with 8161 characters, as opposed to 10849. Ryu Kaze 12:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks a lot. I'm really glad to have you around. I always know I can count on you to see things that I don't when it comes to stuff like this. Ryu Kaze 13:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sphere Break

There is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Final Fantasy where all the rationale for not cluttering Wikipedia with a miriad of articles is explained, and every merged page is explained and debated, and where the Blitzball exception is discussed also. Please do not revive this page without reading it. You can start with WP:NOT and with Wikipedia:Fancruft to get a better idea of why I got rid of it: The category FFX already has too many pages and Sphere break is just a minigame in the sequel. Renmiri 03:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we've come to an impasse. Let's continue this at the WikiProject/To do talk page. Flooch 06:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From Ryu Kaze

I just wanted to say that you've been a welcome addition, Flooch, and that I think you've been doing a great job. Ryu Kaze 18:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks Ryu, much appreciated! Flooch 02:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I'm in awe of your debating skills -- I read the discussion pages for Spira and Al Bhed languages and to me it's obvious that you're an exemplary diplomat and editor. Could you perhaps contribute your opinion to the current Sphere Break debate? (see above)

Thanks for the compliments, Flooch. I'll have a look into the Sphere Break matter. Ryu Kaze 14:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling

You're welcome. I really have appreciated your help. You've been a very good catch for the project. Ryu Kaze 02:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Expanded the explanation for the barnstar.

<--

Flan Princess

I'm curious.. what did you believe needed fixing with this edit? I'm lost. — CuaHL ☺ 02:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Cuahl, thanks for dropping by... when I went to check the article, the cruft was still there (clearing my cache didn't work). I went to check the source, and there was only the redirect. After some research, I found out that the syntax must be uppercase, so I fixed it. Learn something new every day! Flooch 03:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I didn't mean to sound annoying, I just thought I'd done something wrong. It turns out I have.. I've always been putting redirects in lower case and no one's told me differently (oops). Heh, thanks Flooch. — CuaHL ☺ 21:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spira

Good idea with making the "Designing Spira" section. I do need to make sure that I don't cause the intros to these sections to be too long. To answer your question, though, no, having that section isn't like adding a sports/history/religion section. This is info directly relating to the design of geography and theme. Also, during its FA candidacy, people commented that there should be info like that in there. Personally, I think the information should come before the list of locations.

Recent discussions about the manual of style where fictional works are concerned has indicated that the general concensus where encyclopedias are concerned is that an out-of-universe perspective (design info) should come before the in-universe perspective (character history, story, location descriptions, etc.). I think I'm going to relocate that info to the top (still in its own section). It would also grant readers a connotation of what they should maybe expect. If you disagree with its placement, though, let me know. Ryu Kaze 12:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand why you felt reluctant. Like you said, though, I think the notice at the top of the page will likely deter anyone from unnecessary edits. I'm glad I was able to put your mind at ease with my brash nature. XD Ryu Kaze 14:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question

I was wondering how adding the clear break to the Spira page looks on your monitor. On mine, it leaves a huge white space between the opening paragraph and the design info; it looks totally ugly. Ryu Kaze 14:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I took a screenshot. Ryu Kaze 14:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks a lot better, and I see your point about the TOC. Good work. Ryu Kaze 19:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From Renmiri

Yeah, my bad, sorry... Nothing to do with you or wikiwpwedia. I have just brought a Forum site up 3 days before planned because our old host shutdown the old site on us . My apologies! Renmiri 13:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Restoring the gallery to the Blitzball article, while we debate if it should stay (see Talk:Blitzball). If I don't restore it Roomba, the wiki bot, will delete all the pictures Renmiri 14:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, water under the bridge, just don't mention the word lazy anymore, ok ? I'd like to move on Renmiri 00:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Final Fantasy X

Peer review - Final Fantasy X

Think we should go ahead and nominate it for FA? I was going to leave it to Deckiller, but he's got a notice up on his profile saying he's going to be away again, so I'm not sure when he'll be back. Ryu Kaze 16:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I actually have no idea if we can nominate ourselves. XD Let me find out. Ryu Kaze 02:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, you still think the kb count's okay? Ryu Kaze 02:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we can nominate it ourselves. Not sure if it's frowned upon or whatever, but I doubt it. Otherwise, I don't see what the point in people putting all the effort into getting it to that point would be for. Ryu Kaze 02:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm prepared to justify the length if we have to. "Coherency and notability over something that serves as a guideline (at best) to prevent pages from drowning the uninitiated in fancruft that's not actually imposing itself on the page in question." That's my argument. Ryu Kaze 04:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, if we wait for the Peer Review to finish, that'd be weeks. XD We don't have to wait for that, and when a page goes FA, its Peer Review status automatically ends. Ryu Kaze 04:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question: you didn't revert my previous edits, so whose edits were you reverting? — Deckill e r 19:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok. I do prefer how you and Renmiri worded it, but it did leave out some of the details. I put it up for discussion on the peer review. — Deckill e r 20:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok, I see what you're saying. The only major issue I see with the second half is some of the sentences may be a little awkward because they have so much info in them. Other than that, I can understand the revert. — Deckill e r 20:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know for sure, Sin isn't an aeon, no. Bevelle thought so because they didn't know that the fayth on Gagazet were being used to summon Dream Zanarkand. Sin was just a big creature created from pyreflies. Imagine the Mortibody that accompanied Seymour Natus (created in the same way), but about a million times more powerful. Ryu Kaze 21:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't we go ahead and nominate Final Fantasy X? We haven't touched it really in a couple of days and there's been no more PR advice. Ryu Kaze 21:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I'm a little unsure on what exactly to say, but here goes nothing. Ryu Kaze 00:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No turning back now. Cross your fingers. Ryu Kaze 00:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This may be a stupid question, but how exactly does the FAC culminate in FA status? Is there a time period orrr...? I couldn't find the info on the FA page. Thanks in advance. Ryu Kaze 02:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Featured Article Candidates - Final Fantasy X

You make a good point, Flooch. Would you like to do it or would you prefer I do it? Ryu Kaze 01:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely done. Ryu Kaze 02:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yo. Thought you might like to know that I found us a reference for FFX originally being planned to have online functions. Ryu Kaze 14:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And another. Ryu Kaze 14:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Think we've got those FAC issues taken care of? Ryu Kaze 00:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we could maybe quote some of the stuff. Referencing shouldn't be difficult, actually; we'd just throw it in after the quoted/paraphrased passage. Though we might want to be careful of exactly what kind of things we're quoting. Some of the more technical things -- like "not a huge advance in the battle system"; something like what EDGE would criticize -- can be pretty much universally gauged and agreed with, even if you did enjoy the gameplay. Something like "weak voice acting" is highly subjective, as a lot of people loved the voices. The same is true of "tedious plot." Things like a lot of people being unhappy with VII's often ambiguous plot are neutral and accurate, but it's not necessarily accurate to call the plot X tedious.

I'll leave it to you to add anything else. Personally, I think it sounds fine as it is, but I do agree that it wouldn't hurt to have a little more unfavorable criticism. Good work with the other edits you made. Flows much better. Ryu Kaze 13:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we've taken care of most of Zzzzz's critique. Personally, I don't really see how we can take it much further. You got any advice? I'm totally confused as to what he means about not specifying image sizes, because I took all those things out and just left them as "thumbs." I'm also a little confused as to how else we could clarify CTB. I think it sounds radically different from how it did before.

That's why I'm coming to you in other words: can you look over what he hasn't struck out on his list and see what else you think might be wrong? I've added some programming information too, so I'm not sure why he feels that it's coming up short. He doesn't give any additional comments to specify what he means, so we're pretty much just driving in the dark. I think we've satisfied enough of his critique that he shouldn't still be objecting, but whatever. Anyway, again, I'm just asking you to look over the article and see if there's something I'm missing. I've added programming info, more criticism, more legacy information, clarified the CTB, and taken care of most of the other stuff that was still up there.

I think it could probably pass at this point as it is. Deck thinks it's been a rough FAC but that we'll pull through after Raul looks it over, but I'm still a little nervous about the whole thing. I'm sure it wouldn't hurt to look it over a little more. Ryu Kaze 00:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment and for looking everything over again. Good edits. I'd thought about combining Sakaguchi and Nojima's paragraphs before, but I figured that you're really good at figuring out where things fit together, so I left it up to you. Thanks again. I think we're going to pull through. Ryu Kaze 13:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hell yeah

We got there, huh? Good work. Like I told you on the project page, you might say it couldn't have been done without me, but I know I couldn't have done it without your help. Every time I hit a dead-end, one of you others (usually you) was there to pick up the slack. So thanks for the compliments, but be sure to congrulate yourself as well.

As for what's next... XD I don't know. A vacation, maybe? XD Ryu Kaze 15:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and since I ordered that issue of EDGE magazine, I can add some more stuff to the Critical Response section when it gets here. So there is that, but other than that, I don't have any other plans right now. How about you? Ryu Kaze 15:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I haven't left. XD I won't be taking my vacation until next month, actually. Right now I'm working on fixing up the Final Fantasy VII page a little bit. Not sure how far I'm planning to take that, though. Ryu Kaze 12:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battlefield 2 gripes

Battlefield 2 has been criticised by players of the game for its unrealistic portrayal of bullet damage. If you hit an opponent 10 times in the foot, that just isn't going to be enough to stop him in his tracks. Other gripes with the game is a tendency for some players to "spawn-camp", an underhanded tactic that does not allow your opponents time to react upon respawning.

I have yet to see an FPS that accurately simulates bodily injury, or for that matter one that has found a way to effectively prevent spawncamping. While it's true that BF2 could use a little more randomization in spawnpoints (such as spawning anywhere within a controlled point's area instead of precise spawnpoints that, once learned, can by boobytrapped with Claymores), the underlying problem here isn't the game as much as it is the players. Spawncamping is unfortunately one of the necessary evils of FPS gaming, not a problem unique to Battlefield 2. teh TK 08:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as a fan of FPS: you should take a look at America's Army. The developers have gone to some lengths to portray bodily damage (especially movement speed and firing accuracy after being wounded). The overall experience is very realistic, and is easily one of the harder FPSes that I've played, in terms of not being able to go Rambo. :)

I do agree that the gripes about bodily damage and spawn camping are not unique to BF2, and I agreed with the decision to remove them (the paragraph in question wasn't mine the first place; I was rewording an earlier editor's additions.) I'm compiling critical reviews and general concensus on strengths and weaknesses of the game as a product, and I'll re-add the 'Reception and criticism' section when it's done. Nice to meet ya. ~ Flooch 08:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hate to say it, but being able to continue fighting after being shot (even once in a noncritical body part) is something you only see in the movies. Even a non-penetrating round (5.56 or 7.62, anything larger usually can't be blocked with conventional body armor) that is successfully intercepted by body armor will still feel like it had made it through, often resulting in cracked bones (ribs usually) and internal bleeding with rapid onset of shock in the more severe cases. And those are the lucky ones. You have to remember that America's Army is a propaganda tool (and this is coming from someone who is currently serving active duty in the US Army, so don't mistake my POV :P). There are a bunch of other "realism" gripes that I can legitimately dispute regarding America's Army, but that's an entirely different discussion :P And yeah, nice to meetcha :P teh TK 12:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, I've never been shot, so I can't disagree with that!

In the end, AA is a product; it's a compromise between reality and game balance. (Getting shot in a non-essential bodypart and having to sit out the round would suck from a gamer's POV.) Despite being a fan, I too, have gripes about its realism. For one, I would've liked to see more emphasis on the rank hierarchy and following orders of your superiors (ultimately teamwork). Funny that the higher ranks are usually the last chosen... Battlefield 2 is superior to AA in this respect.

One of my acquaintances specialised as a network admin in — and then worked as a private contractor for — the Marines. He once told me that the word "Army" stands for "Aren't Ready to be Marines Yet". Comments? D: ~ Flooch 13:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally a lot of good-natured rivalry exists between the many armed forces. The Marines are joked about as dumb grunts/bullet shields, the Navy is joked about as a bunch of perverts (seamen/semen jokes are abundant), the Air Force is said to get "milk with their cookies" because their enlisted men don't have to fight on the ground like the Marines or Army (this has changed recently, the AF and Navy both have begun small infantry-training programs that're incidentally much better funded and equipped than most Army units that I've personally seen) and the Army is always joked about as dumb grunts by the AF and Navy, and as wimps by the Marines because the Marines are somehow "more hardcore" due to being 99% infantry.

The truth of the matter is that the Army is where all the other services originated - the Army is actually older than the USA itself, having its origins in the militias formed by the thirteen founding colonies. The Air Force was originally the Army Air Force, which then split off to specialize in aerospace-related missions, transport and the like, the Marines split off of the Army as well to concentrate on first-wave, amphibious assault (the Marines existed in World War 2, for example, and did much of the fighting throughout the Pacific) the Navy has always been the Navy. If any Marine tries to say with any seriousness that the Army is a bunch of wimps, invite them to come train with some of our 11 Bravos (our infantry), or better yet tell them to come to Army Airborne School - a 2-week school for Airborne Infantry with a >80% wash out rate. It's that tough. On the other hand, guys like me who'd rather be behind a computer screen than the wheel of a Humvee can take MOSes like 25 Bravo (computer-ish stuff) - but with the exception of a few units, everybody is deployable, so slacking off on training or PT is always a bad idea. teh TK 07:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why countries divide their military forces. Would it offer advantages over unified armies, say, like the PLA or IDF (or even the USMC?) Certainly there must be times, during joint operations, where conflicting orders are given from different HQ's. I came up with the conclusion that it's organised this way so that in the event of one of the forces starting a coup d'etat, the other three could join forces and stop the rogue army. (Would make an interesting movie in any case.)

Would it make better sense to have four USMC-like organisations? Having that versatility in each of the armies could be useful. Or maybe it's easier to administrate with them split up as they are currently. ~ Flooch 08:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to bet it's simply easier to administrate with the forces split up - also, each armed force has a separate budget (constant jokes are made about the Air Force spending all its money on equipment and housing for their airmen, so that when the time comes for actual operational costs they can go to the Department of Defense with empty pockets and say 'Hey, we need more money', whereas the Army just makes due with crappy barracks and sub-par equipment a lot of the time. If you're familiar with the game Warhammer 40,000, the US Army is a lot like the Imperial Guard, whereas the Marines would be the Space Marines - well funded, well-equipped and designed to be an all-in-one, versatile and agile attack force). I seriously doubt the splits had anything to do with worries about a coup. And as far as conflicting orders go, the way the chain of command is set up it's pretty difficult to have that happen, as any given unit only has one set of orders at any given time. For example, say the Commander in Chief decides to invade Afghanistan. He tells the Secretary of Defense to get the forces ready, and then the Chiefs of Staff of the different branches of the Armed Forces collaborate on general strategy, while the highest-ranking officers of the respective branches concern themselves with the strategy and logistics in more detail. It keeps going down the chain until PFC Joe Snuffy of the 101st Airborne Division gets told "We're getting put on standby", meaning he doesn't have any idea when (or even if) the unit's going to be deployed (for security reasons), but he has to get all his gear ready and be prepared to move out on a moment's notice. Anyway you won't have an Air Force Captain shouting orders at an Army Private First Class because they're not in the same branch of service. Supposedly he has general military authority in extreme situations (say, nuclear war and he's the only officer left in the given area), but otherwise as far as that PFC is concerned he doesn't exist (beyond maybe saluting him in passing in a garrison environment). teh TK 10:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Locational damage

hey Flooch. I dont really have any idea about the history of locational damage in FPS'ers, sorry I cant help out with that. I think it would be a good section for the FPS article though. Remy B 09:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: List of Final Fantasy XI characters; Booty Island; Rio Natsuki; Yoshinori Kitase; Chocobo's Mysterious Dungeon; Mayuko Aoki; Itadaki Street Special; Chocobo Racing; Ayumi Ito; Final Fantasy Mystic Quest; NTT Publishing Co., Ltd.; Destiny Islands; Bahamut; Otyugh; Debi Derryberry; Final Fantasy Collection; Ivalice; Final Fantasy VII Snowboarding; Kazushige Nojima

Cleanup: Scryed; Blue-Eyes White Dragon; Emperor Penguin
Merge: Masamune (video game weapon); Cait Sith; Christy Carlson Romano
Add Sources: Kingdom Hearts series; Grandia II; Aeon
Wikify: FilmFantastic Gold Coast Film Festival; Jardine Matheson Holdings Limited; RhyDin
Expand: Suikoden II; System Builder; Job security

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 03:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Spira page

Hey, Flooch. How you been? I stopped by and worked on the new design for the Spira page. It was looking very good before I touched it, but I think I've improved it further. I can't really see anything else to improve on right now, so have a look over it and decide if you think it's ready to replace the current Spira page, and time for the List of locations in Spira page to be made. Ryu Kaze 13:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, Flooch, everything's ready. I've finished the move and created the new page, as well as repaired all broken links. We should be good to go. Nice work. Ryu Kaze 15:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Nice touch with the international headers. Looks better that way. I never thought about that before. Ryu Kaze 01:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. Unfortunately, it would seem that TFA pages are fully protected and can only be edited by... oh. Admins... hm... like Deckiller. :D Ryu Kaze 01:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I asked him to fix it. Ryu Kaze 01:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:BF2-commo-rose.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:BF2-commo-rose.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 01:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Blitzball-screenshot.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Blitzball-screenshot.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 18:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Notesbox

Template:Notesbox (which is used in User:Flooch/Sandbox) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. DH85868993 (talk) 11:18, 19 August 2012 (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) 13:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]