User talk:Attenboroughii

Welcome!

Welcome to my talk page. Please leave any new messages at the bottom of the page; simply [ click here to start a new section down below]!

IPA pronunciation
Wow! Very nice additions to the Nepenthes articles. Is there any chance you could also add IPA pron. to the named natural hybrids? That would be great! Regards, Mgiganteus1 (talk) 03:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject Carnivorous plants
Hey Ryan, it would be my pleasure; thanks for extending the invitation. Good work on this project, by the way; it's come along leaps and bounds in the last two years - certainly of far greater value than it used to be, though there's plenty more to be achieved, Nepenthes no exception! Take care, Attenboroughii (talk) 23:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for joining us! I look forward to more of your excellent contributions on CPs. I love your navbox, by the way. Fantastic icons. Oh, and if you weren't aware of it, we also have a WikiProject Plants. Let me know if I can help you out with anything here on Wikipedia. And again, welcome! Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 23:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing it out; I've already read through the WikiProject Plants blurb and am happy to see the green chaps getting the attention they deserve. I was a member way-back-when, but it's been so long that the system is barely recognisable to me.  All encouraging though, and I appreciate the offer.  Does that extend to knitting?  I'm a sometime serial scarf-maker near Christmas time, but much beyond that and it all goes to hell! G'night, --Attenboroughii (talk) 23:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, excellent. Well, of course let me know if you need any help navigating WP:PLANTS or WP:CPS. The offer of help could indeed extend to knitting, but I must confess I've never been good at it and I, too, can only accomplish scarves and perhaps a small blanket. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 00:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

pronunciation
Hi,

In your edit to Nepenthes × ferrugineomarginata you said that  is always /g/ in Latin names, but you have one as /g/ and one as /dʒ/. kwami (talk) 08:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, Kwami! Yes indeed; this is an unfortunate concession; in botany, the stem ferrugi- is pronounced with a /g/ almost universally, and /dʒ/ in standard English.  This is not the case for margi- (margin, marginate etc.), though it's technically correct with /g/, if less pleasant on the ear.  The important thing to bear in mind is that the IPA included in scientific names is just a guide.  All references (Stearn, 2004 is a good example) dealing with Latin pronunciation go into this as I'm sure you know, and concede that it's better to offer the most technically accurate pronunciation that remains pleasing (or logical, if you prefer) to the ear. Attenboroughii (talk) 08:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't see your comment on [əʊ]/[oʊ] before I made the latest change. No, [oʊ] isn't GA. For some reason, perhaps because of the sources that Wikipedia editors have chosen, [əʊ] has come to be associated with RP, and [oʊ] with GA. But I speak GA, or something pretty close to it, and my pronunciation is clearly closer to [əʊ]. There was a minor discussion on this point when we (RP and GA) developed the help key, and we decided on [oʊ] as an orthographic compromise between [əʊ], [ɜʊ], [ʌʊ], [ɔʊ], [oʊ], [oː], and [o], most of which I've seen in descriptions of both GA and RP, as well as being somewhat more intuitive for IPA novices who might have difficulty accepting that /o/ is a diphthong. (Aussie also played a role in there somewhere.) As we worked it out, /r/ and /h/ are written overtly (just drop them if you don't pronounce them), but most of the vowels are closer to RP, since RP makes more vowel distinctions than GA. In particular, I thought we should have e.g. /eɪr/-/ɛr/ by analogy with /eɪ/-/ɛ/, and so on for all vowels before /r/ (easier to predict by sound rule, and graphically redundant, which makes it easier to read), but the RP'ers insisted that /ɛər/-/ɛr/ etc. was more intuitive, and we went with that. So no, no GA hegemony. (The whole chart could have used more discussion, perhaps - sometimes I wish I'd stuck out for /eɪr/ etc.! - but this had already languished in edit space for years, while readers were complaining they couldn't make heads or tails of the IPA.)


 * As for the Nepenthes edits, I was just trying to bring them in line with the IPA key. A lot didn't (and still don't) show stress in the species, [ɹ] is used for /r/, etc. The latter, of course, is a mere detail, but a lot of people aren't familiar with the IPA, and I don't want to scare them off any more than we have to! kwami (talk) 09:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem, and I certainly appreciate the mire of a background to any current confusion/discrepancies; it's more reassuring than anything to know that you know what you're doing, and that you care about it so much. I certainly appreciate any input.  As for the intonation, I'll run through the list and see which ones are missing stress indicators. Attenboroughii (talk) 09:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Edit conflict! I'd just written:
 * BTW, I appreciate your work here. Several editors have objected to including pronunciation guides for technical terms, because of the variation in the degree of anglicization, and say that people should just learn Latin. It seems to me that, after personal and place names, this is where our readers need it most.
 * Yeah, I've done a rush job on IPAing a lot of things I know nothing about, sometimes just in the hopes that my transcriptions won't be as grossly wrong as the ones I find, like someone who's put an English respelling in brackets and called it the IPA. But there are still 3000 articles linked to the main IPA page (down from 17,000, though a lot of that was transclusion through templates, and easy to remedy), and I just don't have time to do the research necessary for a careful job on everything. The frustrating thing is when I make a mistake, and someone reverts it to something that was even worse, rather than taking the time to fix it. kwami (talk) 09:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi again, Attenboroughii.

What, you're not in the field getting more photos? You still don't have them all in flower!

I don't recall us discussing Nepenthes itself. You and Merriam-Webster have a schwa, whereas the OED, Random House, and American Heritage have an. That's for the genus for all but MW, which in my edition only has the drug nepenthe. This reduced vowel that's sometimes, sometimes , depending on dialect, is what we're transcribing "". And another dict. that calls also itself "Webster's" has. It's pretty standard for an unstressed Latin e to reduce to, much more unusual for it to be in all dialects, including RP. (Though I don't control the difference, and it doesn't exist in Australia.) Sure, I'll take care of reverting my own errors, but are you sure the OED got it wrong for RP, and that Random House et al. got it wrong too? They specifically include the genus. kwami (talk) 23:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay. I don't know which dialect you speak, and therefore whether or not you control this distinction. So you're saying that botanists who do distinguish schwa from schwi nonetheless pronounce Nepenthes with a schwa? Just want to verify before I modify 120 articles. (I wonder if it wouldn't be a good idea to have only the species pronunciation on species articles, and restrict the genus pronunciation to the genus article. Might save a lot of headache, and not just here.) kwami (talk) 08:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, if RPers who could be expected to use (and perhaps do in mythology?) instead use  in this instance, then  is the way to go. How GAers like me pronounce it isn't really relevant, since most of us couldn't tell the difference. kwami (talk) 09:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Attenboroughii - I would certainly second your opinion (as a GA speaker) - the issue of dictionary pronunciations is moot; their pronunciation guides are as arbitrary as those on Wikipedia in the sense they are often decided by individuals, not even panels. Your relative fame for Nepenthes work has no influence on my opinion either ;-) We mainly seem to use ə in California and the mid-West also. Thanks Jeljen (talk) 09:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Images
Stunning images of rare species! I'm blown away. :) Just one thing: I would suggest uploading images to Wikimedia Commons. A repository of free Nepenthes images can be found here. The individual species galleries can be linked from the relevant articles, allowing users to get a better understanding of the plants' morphology and ecology. In addition, images uploaded to Commons can be used on all language editions of Wikipedia, as well as on Wikipedia's sister projects. If it's okay with you, I can reupload the images in your gallery to Commons using the Move-to-commons assistant. Mgiganteus1 (talk) 18:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's very generous of you to say. I don't object to this, but will the move affect the gallery page I've set up in any way?  If not, I'd prefer to finish uploading before you work your magic and copy them all across in one go.Attenboroughii (talk) 18:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It would not affect your gallery in any way. However, I can only copy the images over one-by-one, so it would be easier if you could upload the rest of your images directly to Wikimedia Commons. You could then arrange the images in a gallery over here just as with the current images. Mgiganteus1 (talk) 18:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, well, I'm done in any event; I can't have uploaded more than 2 or 3 between this message and last! Thank you very much for your help with this.  I've uploaded all my images are under the Creative Commons Attribution License. Attenboroughii (talk) 19:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No worries. I have uploaded your first image to Commons; it can be found here. I have also added it to the species gallery here. Mgiganteus1 (talk) 19:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I must second that. Fantastic images! I just clicked through your whole gallery and am thoroughly impressed. It's just too bad you're not out in the field in Australia&mdash;I would bribe you for Stylidium photos like those! Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 06:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Nepenthes mantalingajanensis
Hmmm... In this case, I would suggest removing the sentence in question. The correct year of discovery/first collection can be added when it is published. Alternatively, we could state that the describers of the species first came across it in 1998, or something to that effect. What workaround did you have in mind? Mgiganteus1 (talk) 23:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen herbarium sheets referenced in Wikipedia articles as you describe. However, you make a good point with regards to accessibility. I'd say go for it. Hopefully in a few months' time we'll have more solid references. Mgiganteus1 (talk) 20:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Geography categories
Thanks for correcting those! I was apparently geographically challenged the day I did that and never got around to correcting them all. You have a better grasp on the geography of that region than I do anyway, so I'm glad you took it on. Thanks again! Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 18:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * So it was you! No worries, it's really a minor thing, and some of them are, of course, in Oceania.  I forgot about the hybrids, mind; I'll try to do those immediately.  There isn't a Nepenthes stub is there?  Perhaps that would be useful too.  Cheers,  Attenboroughii (talk) 20:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, User:EncycloPetey and I were just discussing a Nepenthes stub. Seems like you already discovered it! Thanks for stub sorting those. If you ever do have repetitive edits like those that you'd rather not do, the bot I run, User:BotanyBot, can most likely take care of it. Let me know if BotanyBot can ever help :-) Best, Rkitko (talk) 15:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: N. khasiana
I've uploaded this blank map with country borders. Let me know what you think. Regards, Mgiganteus1 (talk) 14:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Nepenthes khasiana distribution.jpg|thumb|]]
 * Thanks for doing that - it's perfect! Are you happy with the modified version?  I considered cropping it closer, but doing so would make the region in question less obvious to people not familiar with that part of the world; not something we should take for granted...  Cheers, Attenboroughii (talk) 21:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks good! I decided to include most of the Indian subcontinent in my original upload for this very reason. Your cropped version is a nice compromise. I'll add it to the article. Mgiganteus1 (talk) 06:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Great, thank you! Attenboroughii (talk) 08:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice
Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 07:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

<!-- == Possibly unfree File:Nepenthes edwardsiana entire ASR 052007 tambu.jpg == A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Nepenthes edwardsiana entire ASR 052007 tambu.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Ipatrol (talk) 00:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC) --Ipatrol (talk) 00:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

==Speedy deletion of File:Nepenthes edwardsiana entire ASR 052007 tambu.jpg== A tag has been placed on File:Nepenthes edwardsiana entire ASR 052007 tambu.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. , and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:
 * state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
 * add the relevant copyright tag.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Ipatrol (talk) 22:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC) -->

Re: Nepenthes sharifah-hapsahii
Yes, the inclusion of this "species" has bothered me for some time. However, I am not aware of any published sources (prior to Pitcher Plants of the Old World) that synonymise the two question its species status. When the second edition of Pitcher Plants of Borneo was published I redirected Nepenthes naquiyuddinii and Nepenthes zakriana. Unfortunately the authors made no mention of N. sharifah-hapsahii (as far as I can tell). I've been planning to also redirect N. sharifah-hapsahii once McPherson's book is released.

Indeed, it was my intention to reorganise all our species articles so they agree with the classification in Pitcher Plants of the Old World. If we are to go ahead with this, we'll lose 8 species by my count: Nepenthes adrianii, Nepenthes anamensis, Nepenthes carunculata, Nepenthes fallax, Nepenthes globosa, Nepenthes pectinata, Nepenthes sharifah-hapsahii, and Nepenthes xiphioides ...and gain 5: Nepenthes alba, Nepenthes kampotiana, Nepenthes kongkandana, Nepenthes micramphora, and Nepenthes pitopangii. mgiganteus1 (talk) 14:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hrm.. I guess we could still exclude N. sharifah-hapsahii by stating that our species list follows Pitcher Plants of the Old World and subsequent publications (though I'm not sure what could be done with the article itself - it can't really be moved to N. × sharifah-hapsahii due to the lack of published literature, it can't be redirected to a single species either, and a redirect to Nepenthes would be less than ideal).


 * I'd be in favour of including the undescribed species as well. There is a precedent to include such taxa if they have been covered by reliable sources (see for example Eastern Australian sawshark). The undescribed species could be listed under the main species list like so. mgiganteus1 (talk) 22:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Great news! Nepenthes × sharifah-hapsahii it is then. Is the hybrid's putative parentage specified in the text? mgiganteus1 (talk) 02:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Nepenthes IDs
I've just uploaded a number of very interesting habitat photos from kleo_marlo's flickr photostream (User:Kleomarlo). From what I can make out, the species are:

N. peltata:

The last bunch is particularly puzzling. Any ideas? mgiganteus1 (talk) 04:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I'm not Manders - just plain old Mgiganteus! ;-) I've moved the two N. mindanaoensis images to the relevant gallery on Commons (although I must say that first pitcher is a dead ringer for a form of N. copelandii I once grew!). Can any of the last group of plants be positively identified as N. alata or a specific hybrid, or should they all be sent to the "unidentified Nepenthes" pile on Commons? mgiganteus1 (talk) 21:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The last three photos in the last batch of pictures were not taken in Mount Hamiguitan, but rather in the Kalatungan Mountain Range in Central Bukidnon. FYI --Kleomarlo (talk) 10:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Glabrous
G'day, and thanks for the detailed post. My concern is that a sentence like "Nepenthes tentaculata has no indumentum; all parts of the plant are glabrous." is incomprehensible to a non-specialist audience. Which, by definition, is the audience that Wikipedia serves. That's why we have templates like cleanup-jargon. Linking the words to their definitions helps somewhat, but isn't really a solution for printed formats, etc, and is hard on the reader.

If "glabrous" is a particularly important term, it's probably better to leave the word, and gloss it (that is, put a less technical word next to it, as I did with "indumentum".

To address your points specifically:
 * "Altering one entry among 120 Nepenthes pages makes that page the odd one out" - yes, but that's ok. It's not really reasonable to say "Either change 120 pages simultaneously, or change none at all". But maybe this should be discussed at a wikiproject level, or something.
 * "Those people who are interested in actually reading the detailed species descriptions are more than likely to have become familiar with such terminology." - maybe, maybe not. Certainly not in my case. And this isn't in line with Wikipedia policy. (Actually now that I look at it, Explain jargon is pretty vague.)
 * "Substituting glabrous for hairless is also inconsistent in the face of the numerous other words that are even more specialised, such as peristome, cordate, amplexicaul, revolute, pinnate or filiform. Unless these are all changed, there is no point changing just one that has a perfectly valid meaning" - again, I don't agree with your "change one, change all" logic. Also, in most instances, the context is enough to tell the reader something - the word is a part of the plant, or describes a shape or something. The particular sentence I changed had the problem that it gave no context whatsoever without the jargon. See the problem? It said "Nepenthes tentaculata has no flooblahglib; all parts of the plant are dimboculated."
 * "each of these unusual adjectives can be linked to their meanings whilst being specific enough for a technical person to know exactly what is being described, where more general adjectives are too vague and therefore insufficient." - IMHO, it really is better to gloss the term inline. There's even an existing example in the same paragraph: "The pitcher lid or operculum is ovate and typically obtuse" - what's wrong with that? Your specialist audience will understand "operculum", and the general audience will understand "pitcher lid". Now, I don't know what "obtuse" means in this context, but that's ok - I understand what comment the sentence is making.
 * "your addition of "or bristles" was immediately redundant after the statement that the species has no indumentum" - isn't the sentence already redundant? ("N Tentaculata has no bristles; it is smooth") But perhaps you misread what I added, it's not "Has no indumentum or bristles", it's "Has no indumentum, or bristles". Subtle, maybe.

So...in compromise, I'm going to add back in ", or bristles", but leave "glabrous" alone. Stevage 22:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Heliamphora ionasi
Happy New Year! This appears to be a very widespread misspelling indeed! I've made a quick fix by adding a note to the article explaining the discrepancy. More corrections and page moves to follow.. mgiganteus1 (talk) 18:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I think I got all of them. Fortunately there weren't that many! mgiganteus1 (talk) 18:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * To move an article to a new title simply click on the "move" tab at the top of the page. WP:MOVE has more information. Cheers, mgiganteus1 (talk) 18:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Author abbreviation
Could we wait a little longer with the author abbreviation corrections? As it stands now we are citing a source that directly contradicts the abbreviation presented, which could be confusing to readers (assuming anyone digs that deep!). mgiganteus1 (talk) 12:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Drosera ultramafica
Congrats on the new species! Rkitko (talk) 12:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Ryan, sweet of you to say as much. I hear whispers of a Stylidium monograph in the offing; that has to be something that'll interest you! Attenboroughii (talk) 00:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, yes, I've heard the same. That would likely be the work of Juliet Wege in preparation for the Flora of Australia series? I have no idea when it's to be published, but I'm very excited about it. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 01:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations Doctor Robinson - word through the grapevine is that it took so long b/c one of your peer reviewers lost the ms under the mountain of paper in his office, but you didn't hear it from me. Well done on getting a page up so quickly Jeljen (talk) 00:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Jeljen - I don't know who the reviewer was and cannot comment on the matter. Best wishes Attenboroughii (talk) 00:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

IPA
Oops! Sorry about that. Ironically, it was precisely because I knew you had originally added the pronunciations that I reverted the IP edits. I hadn't considered that they may have diverged significantly since then. I'll go back and revert my reversions. mgiganteus1 (talk) 09:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If we have consensus on how to proceed (and it seems we might), then all instances of the pronunciation can be corrected with relative ease using AutoWikiBrowser. So that's not a problem. For what it's worth I also pronounce it, and would be in favour of such a change. Cheers, mgiganteus1 (talk) 00:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Files missing description details
Dear uploader: The media files you uploaded as: are missing a description and/or other details on their image description pages. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the images, and they will be more informative to readers.
 * File:Nep icon2.png
 * File:Nepenthes icon.png
 * File:Nepenthes mail icon.png

If the information is not provided, the images may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 08:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Trimeresurus borneensis
Hello, Attenboroughi! Thank you for correcting and clarifying the "Geographic range" section of the Trimeresurus borneensis WP article. The political geography of that part of the world is confusing to many of us here in North America.

By the way, I did not add Indonesia to the distribution of this species; it was included in the article at its creation. I simply added Herr Doktor Wilhelm Peters' original German spelling of the type locality (in quotation marks and in italics).

I'm hoping that you may be willing to help to further improve this WP article. Indraneil Das on page 57 of his 2006 book, A Photographic Guide to Snakes and Other Reptiles of Borneo, writes the following for the distribution of T. borneensis:

"Known from Brunei, Sarawak, Sabah and Kalimantan, and extralimitally, from southern Thailand, the Malay Peninsula and Sumatra."

I have not added these data to the article because I'm not sure if these place names represent provinces, states, countries, etc. Since you know that area much better than I, perhaps you could add these localities to the "Geographic range" section in a correct and understandable format.

Thank you also for your suggestion that I register an account. I've been considering doing that, especially so that I may be able to create new articles for the genera and species of herps which lack them. I'm not too computer literate, more of an old-fashioned books-paper-pencil kind of guy. I'm also a bit of a procrastinator. But I've just about decided on my "nom de plum" ; so it shouldn't be long now.

Finally, thank you for your kind compliment on my knowledge of reptiles. I learned by hands-on experience, working for many years with a large herpetological collection in a natural history museum. 108.17.71.21 (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)