User talk:JustaCorpse

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

Gypsy Vanner

Saw your edits to Gypsy Vanner Horse. Can you kindly go to WP:CITE and see how to properly format citations with "ref" tags. While the in-text cites you used are technically OK, when we try to upgrade articles to Good article quality, we will be forced to redo them all. If you'd like to see the formatting stuff, see, for example, our featured article quality pieces such as Icelandic horse, Andalusian horse, Appaloosa or Thoroughbred. For your article, on a less major breed and thus shorter, you might find another of our best-quality articles, Suffolk Punch helpful. We also cannot use unpublished material that is not verifiable by a third-party source. See WP:V. I will not to a lot of editing on the article yet, as I'd like to give you a change to improve an article that has long needed an upgrade, but I'm going to put on some tags to indicate where the problems are, and if you need help, drop us a line at WP:EQUINE's talk page. Montanabw^(talk) 01:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help. We have more guidelines here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Equine/Horse breeds. The Gypsy Vanner article has been on our radar to improve it for a long time, but we've avoided it because it is a challenge to find sources that aren't either filled with breeder PR or "magic ponies and unicorns" (if you know what I mean ;-) (We have a similar problem with [{Friesian horse]]). One thing you can do is if your sources exist on google books, be sure to add that URL, it really helps verifiability if we have web links. Mostly, just be real careful not to copy material from other sources, use your own words and be careful not to paraphrase too closely -- we had to dump a lot of material out of several articles wher someone had copy and pasted off of an external, copyrighted, web site! =:-O I may stop by there and poke around a bit as you edit, please know that all my edits are intended to be helpful! Montanabw^(talk) 19:35, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Oh, no, I appreciate the help. I'm as much of an expert on the Gypsy/Vanner/Horse/Cob as anyone in the U.S. Unfortunately, aside from the Hart book, there's been very little written about them in hard copy. The breed book referenced is, I believe, one of those books where a registry is approached to pay for inclusion. It's really not a great reference but what do you do? The real info is on websites (Black Forest Shires & Gypsy Horses, which is now archived on the waybackmachine) is one of the best; it does have a modern, current incarnation which has much of the same information on it. Dennis Thompson's site is also somewhat helpful. The two sites referenced in the current article are as good as any, but they simply repeat the party line, the same info that's on dozens of other sites and has just been put there based on what Americans have guessed or been told. It's hearsay. I'll just have to do the best that I can between the various good websites and the Hart book.

A question--this is just to get me on firm ground. There's a photo of one of the horses reported to be a founding sire of the breed. According to him, a man in England took that photo and has given me permission to use it on my site. If a 3rd party when to him and asked him if he'd taken the photo and asked what horse the photo was of, he would tell them he had and give them the horse's name. Is this considered verifiable material?

I did see items in the other horse articles that I thought sources for should be cited but were not. For instance, how do we know the Icelandic Horse was bred in Iceland? We don't have written sources that tell us it was. I don't know how I can legitimately claim the Gypsy was bred in the British Isles. That's what everyone knows, but maybe these breeds were bred somewhere else and brought to these places. I guess I'm not sure what needs substantiation and what doesn't. SFGMary (talk) 22:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd open up a new section on the talk page of the Gypsy Vanner article and post the URLs to the links and books in question. We can assess how they will stack up against WP:RS that way. Montanabw^(talk) 00:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When we look at third party sources that "repeat the party line," the problem we come up against (in MANY horse articles, so much is transmitted word of mouth in horse land!) is that wikipedia frowns on "original research", which in many cases is a good policy (the moon is not made of green cheese, after all!), but with horse stuff can be a problem in both directions -- a lot of what people think is true ain't necessarily so! And sometimes, the "breed encyclopedias" aren't very good, but they are all we have! I sympathize though; I know that in my area of expertise (Arabian horse, a GA-class article) we have to constantly deal with the nonsense about Arabians "always" having fewer vertebrae than other breeds (not true, just some animals do, and horses of other breeds sometimes have fewer vertebrae too) and it's all over the internet. (I have more examples, but that's the most common one). On the other hand, WP can stir up a shitstorm on every breed article where we uncover and document some scandal that the breed registries want to cover up (genetic diseases, soring, registering crossbreeds as purebreds, etc...) Ideally, you CAN find works published in places other than the registry's web site or a breeder's for-profit farm web site. This same problem is giving me fits at western saddle because there are many accurate sites out there with good info on saddle construction, rigging and styles, but WP doesn't like them because they are the sites of for-profit tack shops. Montanabw^(talk) 00:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As for the image, copyright problems are a real bugaboo. In a perfect world, the owner of the copyright posts the image at Wikimedia Commons (commons.wikimedia.org) and puts it up under a free license (I wind up taking a lot of random photos to illustrate some articles for that reason, it's easier!) If you can't locate the photographer, or they don't want to release it as a free image, it gets tricky. If the horse is dead, we can usually use an image anyway as "fair use" (see, for example, the photos in Bask or Khemosabi) but if the horse is living, and presumably more photos could be taken, it's harder to use a fair use rationale. If the image was PUBLISHED (not taken, published) prior to 1923, then it's probably in the public domain and can be used no matter what. Montanabw^(talk) 00:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SFGMary, you are invited to the Teahouse

Thanks!!! And thanks for answering all my questions. SFGMary (talk) 02:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SFGMary! 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) 01:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hints

Just letting you know that putting in names of farms and owners is really discouraged unless there is some extraordinary reason to do so (like winning the Olympics, perhaps) unless there is some independent WP:NOTABILITY involved, it can be construed as advertising, which is strongly discouraged on wikipedia. There are exceptions, like how William Shatner breeds American Saddlebreds, but usually this is because the link is newsworthy outside the breed. To give you an example of another British breed that has a featured article (it was even on the main page a little while back) see New Forest Pony. Montanabw^(talk) 23:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is hogwash. Just because noting a farm or business name might be a misuse is no reason to exclude the valuable information contained therein. For instance, how breeders in England refer to the breed (cob vs. horse) is a valuable piece of info. But no, can't be used because this might give the breeder some advertisement? Silly. Those breed encyclopedias are commercial too you know. They go to registries and offer them a place if the registry gives them money. It's a racket.

SFGMary (talk) 05:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely agree on some of the breed encyclopedias; they read verbatim from the breed's web site. Basically, the whole issue of advertising and conflict of interest editing on wikipedia is kind of a dramafest and minefield all rolled up into one. Meh. Montanabw^(talk) 20:50, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks!

You did a lot of good work on the Gypsy Vanner article. I went in and did some copyediting to bring your work in line with the wikipedia manual of style and other guidelines (WP:MOS), did some copyediting, rearranged some stuff and generally did cleanup. I think I explained everything I did, either here, at the article page, or in my edit summaries. I apologize that I took the article over today, feel free to keep on working on it. It has been improved so much, thanks to your work, that I upgraded the assessment from "start" to "B" class and am going to take it off the problem child list for the horse breeds task force! There is always room to keep expanding and improving an article, but you are off to a GREAT start (just don't be adding in all those breeder names unless we have outside sources to explain why they are a big deal for the breed as a whole...) Montanabw^(talk) 00:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More hints

In my edits today, I tried to do one tweak per edit and left an edit summary in the history explaining what I was doing and why. May be helpful to you as you go along. Montanabw^(talk) 22:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 02:06, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Phase2 International (company) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Enterprise, Federal, SMB and Microsoft Exchange

Gypsy Vanner horse (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to USEF

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ping

I'll stay off the Gypsy Vanner article while you are editing today, to avoid edit conflicts, but maybe ping me on my talk when you are done so I can review things. Looks like you are doing great work. BTW, though, I think it may be best to link to Romanichal for references to UK "gypsies," as I think there has been a number of editing dustups here on wiki as to whether "Gypsy" is an ethnic slur. Seems the safest bet, even over Romani. As for the claims that the horses were also owned/used by Irish Travellers, (another distinct ethnic group and topic of an old discussion at the Vanner article's talk page) and the "Irish cob" thing, I don't see any need to put that stuff in until you have some good, reliable sources for it. (Another HUGE minefield on-wiki are all topics Irish... :-P ) Oh yeah, and another thing, if you want to see one way to handle multiple breed standards, see what we did at Welsh pony and cob. Another article with multiple battling registries, is Andalusian horse, which also may give you ideas for how to discuss the factions. (and avoid multiple spinoff articles). There are also two types of Paso Fino, (Puerto Rican and Columbian), and that article is still in kind of rough shape but is trying to address both factions there, too. Montanabw^(talk) 20:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help! I should finish the history section today, and then we can start condensing/wordsmithing it. And thanks for the pointers. Yes, I was a bit worried about Romany and Gypsy allusions. I'll let you know when I'm done this section so you can take a peek at what I've done. SFGMary (talk) 20:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've got everything down that I would consider important about the history except for two books I'm looking for to cite, one on Drums. It's probably somewhat raw--maybe we want to use subsections? SFGMary (talk) 23:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to get to everything today, hopefully will tweak so as to answer your concerns! Montanabw^(talk) 20:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No hurry, and thanks! I'll prepare to plunge into the breed standards. And I have two sources I've got to look for. One is for the Drums--that's why there's a lot of uncited material there. SFGMary (talk) 20:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done with my tweaks for today, dive back in wihout fear of edit conflicts! Montanabw^(talk) 01:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops

Just hit an edit conflict with you. Sit tight and I'll fix it. Montanabw^(talk) 21:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I incorporated what you have done... note how I redid the references (separate page numbers, new ref name) and that I moved all the stuff on vardoes to a different article because it was sort of "going down a rabbit hole" as to this article, which is about the horse. Montanabw^(talk) 21:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 15:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 01:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gypsy Vanner horse, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vardo (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) 13:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tweaky whacky

I'm going to take a run at cleanup and elimination of redundancies in the article. Just slap me if I change something I shouldn't. I understand that nuance does matter, but I'm not up on in-house concerns within the GV/GC/GH world. So see WP:TROUT for if I do something really stupid. Also found some European stuff that may help. Montanabw^(talk) 21:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

How the heck do i clear my sandbox? It seems like it's still linked to a new article i launched. I'm afraid to change the sandbox for fear i will harm the article! I want to start on a new project. Thanks! SFGMary (talk)Mary

Great question SFGMary! There are a few ways to do it. If there is just #REDIRECT[[your article]] then it is safe to just delete it and put anything you want in there, No worries, the article is safe. The other option is to put {{db-u1}} and an admin will come by and delete it for you. Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 21:24, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I blanked it for you, Mary. All is well! You can use that deletion template if you want, but you may prefer to just reuse the sandbox for something else, too. Montanabw^(talk) 22:17, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gypsy horse, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vardo (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) 12:23, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be interested in...

Providing me a peer review on an article I hope to take to FAC: Mucho Macho Man. I need both horsey and non-horsey eyes on this to see where I may need to improve the article. Please feel free to give it a very critical eye; I will most certainly get a critical eye at FAC and would prefer to fix any obvious problems before I get there. Thanks! Montanabw^(talk) 20:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the peer review request is here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Mucho Macho Man/archive1 Montanabw^(talk) 20:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! When do you need it by? And how do place the review? SFGMary (talk) 21:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sooner is better than later, but I think they keep them open for a minimum of a week. Just click on the peer review link, create a bold line this way: ;Comments by SFG Mary (note the semicolon) and then just say what you think, ideally using bullet points for each thing you think needs to be fixed. One person is there already, you can see how she did it and I answered her. Montanabw^(talk) 01:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How is the most effective way to suggest edits and word changes? Is there an easier way to do this than "sect. Such and such, para. Such and such, line such and such"?

SFGMary (talk) 05:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC) This is too frustrating. How about i just make the edits and you can reverse them if you don't like them? SFGMary (talk) 05:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heh and LOL! I would value your input as a horse person but also an outside eye in three ways: 1) Rather than the picky stuff the others are doing, I'd value your overall impressions, a narrative is fine ("I like this because blah, blah, but I have some problems with that because blah, blah, blah"). 2) Hidden text is a FANTASTIC tool! You can put a hidden text comment right into the article saying things like "really awkward sentence there" or "Are you sure you aren't talking out your butt here?" LOL! It looks like this:  and I will put some hidden text into this paragraph to show you how it works (It's hiding here: ) 3) Edits are fine, though given that a couple other people are also whacking at it, make sure if you get an edit conflict that you either go, "meh, I'll fiddle with it later" or reconciile both your edits and the other person's. Montanabw^(talk) 20:50, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stay!

I posted this at the Gypsy horse talk page, but am repeating it here:

SFGMary, don't fret so. I know you are doing the best you can with limited source material. JLAN is one of our strongest European-based horse editors and he often draws the attention of we American editors to our North American bias, but the bias can't be helped if we can't find more stuff, there is a need here to add any UK/Ireland-based material that can be found (the Irish Cob Society appears to be the only UK-based source??) I do hope you write a book, then we'd have a RS for this article! Montanabw ^(talk) 05:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, don't let one grumpy editor get you down. JLAN has felt the same way about me! We snipe and snark and so on, but in the end, the encyclopedia - slowly - gets better. (It's like law and sausage some days, though...) Montanabw ^(talk) 05:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well perhaps Wikipedia's editors should be more courteous to civilians. I was so proud of that article. I have not had a pleasant last few years, and it has been a bright spot. Maybe he will have access to more information? He may be right--there was definitely an Irish connection with those horses. Roadsweeper came from Ireland and my Rose, one of the notable mares of the breed, had an Irish background. Her sire was an unnamed Irish stallion. And there's the Connors. And The Coal Horse was also Irish.

Interesting though that the British didn't seem to think much of these horses. Why the sudden interest?

And then that Dennis Thompson comes in--I wonder what prompted that after all this time? He's lost his pre-eminent stallions Latcho Drom and The Gypsy King, whose son and replacement is not working out well. Maybe he is feeling vulnerable.

I guess I overreacted--whatever his name is just hit me at a bad moment. Thanks for your support. You seem to be the only one with common sense there. SFGMary (talk) 14:14, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hang tight, I'm going to wade in there and try to reconcile the edits. JLAN may disagree and we will spat, but feel free to post anything you want at talk. Montanabw ^(talk) 02:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no Montana, don't get into trouble, at least not for me. It's just the high handedness of all this. Did I go that badly astray? I didn't think it was that bad. He/she may be correct about the Irish origins but I thought major changes like this were debated and a consensus reached. And how can this Irish connection be established? Maybe those books he cited? Everything is anecdotal. Oh dear I wish this hadn't happened. I've been upset all day. No offense, but editors should be more diplomatic to people who offer to help. I have no aspirations to be a Wikipedia editor. And you did monitor--if I didn't do something right, you were on it immediately. I may lodge a complaint with Wikipedia. 75.138.172.189 (talk) 02:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't in trouble and there is no real "complaint department" here other than assorted dramaboards, there is the article WP:BITE which is applicable to your situation, but taking issue with JLAN won't go anywhere; I once had to deal with someone who figured out my real world identity and felt I shouldn't edit Arabian Horse Association because I was on a (volunteer) committee there. I "won" but it was after about a week of nonsense drama, sound and fury, etc. Wikipedia has an "experts are scum" attitude that is probably related to the issue that something over 80% of all editors are male and most young (I don't think JLAN is all that young, I think he is more of a curmudgeon). I think that JLAN had some good material to add, but not to rewrite the whole article; I'll take a whack at his edits in a bit, but it will be a lot of work because there are so many changes.. Montanabw ^(talk) 03:12, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah and I thought Romanichal was policy. This whole thing is just upsetting. SFGMary (talk) 03:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my changes: [1] I explained them at talk. As for the rest, yes, WP drama can be quite upsetting, but it's usually something that settles down after a bit. I think the trick is to take the issue to the Romani/Roma/Romanichal projects and just ask which is preferred, but maybe also research a few off-wiki sites run by Romani organizations and suss out if the people themselves have strong feelings on the issue. But, don't take it as gospel, we actually had a WP fight once over whether "red Indian" was offensive (it is, but try explaining that to a 17-year-old British kid raised on Peter Pan and who lives in his mommy's basement); I know that the "Native American" versus "Indian" thing is a big deal where I live, but I have also run into people from the same tribe who have diametrically opposed opinions on the issue! Montanabw ^(talk) 05:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid to go look but thanks for your support. I got quite invested in this article and I'm not adverse to it being improved, but to just come in and rewrite the whole thing was a bit shocking. I thought Wikipedia proceeded slowly, methodically. I think he may be right about the Irish origins of the horse but how to prove it? I can interview breeders in Ireland and England and have talked to a good many, but that's original research. The story of Roadsweeper being brought from Ireland to England--that was apparently a seminal event, at least from what my sources say. This link with Ireland isn't anywhere on the web except on my website; I wanted to preserve the information. SFGMary (talk) 16:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've now spent about three or four hours going over it meticulously, I reverted it to your last version and then reviewed JLAN's edits paragraph by paragraph. Basically, where his wording made the article less US-focused or otherwise looked a bit clearer, I used his phrasing. There turned out to be a lot less rewriting than I thought; he mostly just flipped the history and characteristics sections and then dumped a lot of the references; I restored the sequencing and sourcing. He made a series of edits thereafter, but I again went through, kept much of his rephrasing but restored your sources. I think it's "Safe" to look at now, in terms of seeing if **I** have anything wrong now. (Check the history and if there are updates, click on my last version and assess that one.) Hang in there; what we have is a case of WP:BRD, which was the JLAN was pretty "bold", I reverted and now we will discuss ... for quite some time, but I think the goal really is to make the article the best it can be, but there will be strum und drang on the way... But I've been on wikipedia for nine years and the bullshit on the underside hasn't run me off yet! Montanabw ^(talk) 03:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to delete this talk page

I have declined your request because user talk pages are not normally deleted, see WP:DELTALK. With a few exceptions, none of which apply here, you may blank anything you like from your user talk page, including this message, but the history is retained for the record. If you want more than that, and you are leaving Wikipedia permanently, see Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing for what you can do. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JustaCorpse. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

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) 16:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, JustaCorpse. 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)[reply]