User talk:Emyth

Hello Emyth, a very warm welcome to Wikipedia! If you need editing help, visit How does one edit a page or how to format them visit our manual of style. Experiment at Sandbox. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Naming conventions. You can sign posts on talk pages by entering four tildes. If you have any other questions about the project, check out Help, add a question to the Village pump, or leave a message on my Talk page. Enjoy, -- Viajero 20:36, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute Notice Placement
Hello Cvaneg... Regarding the placement of the NPOV Dispute Notice at the bottom of the Ramakrishna Paramahamsa article, did you read the talk? I explained that I placed it at the bottom because when it was at the top it had be removed by User:Ramashray (who is very definsive of his (her?) article.) I am trying to engage in a careful working through of these issues with a very partisan person. Comments and additions by two other wikipedians have bolstered my case, and Ramashray has participated in the addition of information about the disputes regarding Ramakrishna. We have a teaching moment here...but it's explosive (c.f. the wildly negative and defamatory comments by Ramakrishnan partisans about Jeffrey Kripal and Wendy Doniger...)

I have searched the Wikipedia for some indication of a required placement for the notice, but do not find it. If it is all the same to you, I would prefer to put it back where I had it... Unless, of course, I've overlooked the set, agreed upon convention, in which case I'd appreciate your pointing me to the chapter & verse. Thanks, Emyth 00:50, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you are correct, there does not seem to be a set policy for placement of NPOV dispute tags. That having been said, the general convention seems to be putting them on top, or if there is a specifically disputed section, to mark that section with the {NPOV-section} tag.  My general opinion is that they should be put on top for reasons of clarity.  If an article is having an NPOV dispute, then it should be clear to all the readers.  If it is at the bottom, than the reader may miss it and have an erroneous asumption on the quality of the article.  Regarding the specific article, I have no particular knowledge of the subject, rather I was going through pages with NPOV disputes and trying to fix them up. --CVaneg 16:32, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

God
Unless he provides evidence to the contrary, his addition to God was original research and, as such, isn't allowed on Wikipedia. Also, you don't have to post your reply on my talk page, just his. -- brian0918 &#153;  16:57, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good research! Will come back to you on this over the weekend

Kevin Baas

 * Well if the theologians don't know latin, then they shouldn't use latin words. Kevin Baastalk 15:49, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)

(copied from my talk page)

Whoa, now, calm down Kevin Baas... Latin? Who's using Latin? Every word I wrote is good English. Perhaps some have Latin roots, but it is English. It is a linguistic fact that loan words from Latin may develope and take additional, even different meanings once they are accepted into English. It is sophmoric to restrict English usage based on Latin lexicology. Etymologies, while fascinating, instructive, interesting and informative, are NOT the answer... The Meaning of Life, the Universe and all that is not so simple.


 * It is important that the interpretations of theological statements do not become distorted by historical shifts, such as changes in etymology regarding "omni-" or "virgin". that is the point that i was trying to make.  the point is that the original meaning of these things are what is in question, and it is important to preserve them so that a person or a gropu of people (such as an institution or an establishment) cannot change an argument, premise, or assertion that has been shown to be flawed to avoid acknowledging that flaw. Kevin Baastalk 18:20, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)

Your "allusion" calling God a "pimp" doesn't work if you have to write a paragraph of jargon and two-bit words to explain it... No one will know what you are talking about and merely dismiss you as a bore (if they don't revert your work and go on to ban you...) That sort of provocation does not produce thoughtful work on the Wikipedia. I was merely asking you in good faith if that was really what you wanted to do. But you go on and continue in that vein, making apparent your POV.


 * I am not discussing my POV. I am making a point that avoiding topic areas because they are stigmatized or taboo, is an obstacle to critical thinking and getting at the truth of the matter. The taboo-ness or lack of taboo-ness regarding a pattern of sexual behavior does not affect the antropological probabilities, and so neither should it affect the references to such possibilities in a discussion. So, neither, does the degree to which a particular interpretation of a word such as "omni-" supports or does not support a given argument, affect the validity of that interpretation. Kevin Baastalk 18:21, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)

No, I don't know that Mary the mother of Jesus of Nazareth was a "slut"... I do know that that is one of many divergent theories about her and I recognize  your explanation of "Virgin" as just one of the trendy and popular fads going around about Mary  - and it doesn't particularly bother me. Scholars know that there is something odd about Jesus' birth/parentage and so your calling him a "bastard" doesn't upset me either. Do you know the theories about Mary being raped by a Roman soldier? That's a real old one... But it's neither here nor there as far as the God article goes. There could be an appropriate spot to go into that stuff...could be interesting...But it's really tangential our discussion.


 * Actually, the most trendy and popular fad is also the wildest theory: immaculate conception. I won't call scholarly research "fad" insofar as it is scholarly research; records and historical evidence are not ephemereal.

I really thought that you might have had some good ideas that would be useful in the God article: See how I interpreted your thought in neo-classical, process theological terms...  However, you have shown that you have an ax to grind against traditional Christianity. I am not a Christian myself, and am interested in the God article from a post-Christian perspective. Your particularizing of God to merely a Christian concept does not interest me and seems to be derailing the discussion. Please reconsider the direction in which this seems to be going. All the best, Emyth 17:06, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * I see that you are reading too much of your own suspicions into what I say, and I do not appreciate being a straw man and a victim of bad faith. Kevin Baastalk 18:21, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)

You really didn't have to put this all here, I've read it all on your talk page already. Since you don't seriously address the points I've brought up. Since you are determined to make this nasty. Since you are dodging taking responsibility for your POV. Since you do not recognize scholarly citations, nor give any for your assertions. Why should I continue to talk with you? Strike one... Emyth 22:55, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

SDA Article Improvement
Hey Emyth, I am quite keen to make the SDA article more scholarly and balanced and would like to work with you to achieve this, send me an email (reverse): ua.moc.oohay(AT)nosobsggib Cheers, --Fermion 00:15, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pandeism
If there's only 38 original hits in Google (and most of them are mirrors of Wikipedia), then it's probably original (or made-up) research and doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Please place vfd on Pandeism and explain on the VFD page your findings in detail about who has been spreading "pandeism" throughout Wikipedia. I'll read your comments there and help remove this nonsense from other articles. You must clearly explain that "pandeism" is an extreme minority (of 1 person?) viewpoint, original research, and doesn't belong within 10 miles of Wikipedia. -- brian0918 &#153;  19:30, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you search google for: pandeism -wikipedia, you only get 29 results, and nearly all of those seem to be based completely on Wikipedia content as well. (several of these dont seem to have been filtered out by the -wikipedia though they should have been) -- brian0918 &#153;  19:38, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Alright, see Votes for deletion/Pandeism and please add your vote. -- brian0918 &#153;  21:04, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Pandeism article is now fully rewritten based on verifiable sources. -- 8^D gab 15:08, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

Hi, in response to your query, I've decrypted and moved the Pandeism discussion to its own page, User:2412/Archive - Pandeism discussion. I don't what possessed me to encrypt it in the first place - I was thinking that anyone who really wanted to see it could look on the page history anyway. -- 8^D gab 20:07, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I'm not exactly sure who Orlando Alcántara Fernández is ("Orlando Alcántara" gets about 150 unique Google hits; strangely enough, "Orlando Alcantara" without the accent gets about 200, but they're completely different; Cristorly gets about 130, mostly in Christian discussion forums). The important thing, to me, is his comment about Spinoza. You see, almost a decade ago, my humanities professor said that Giordano Bruno and Baruch Spinoza were properly classified as pandeists, not as pantheists. Now, I don't know how many people are very familiar with Spinoza, but this Orlando Alcántara stated in a webpost that "Pantheism is right, because we are speaking about a personal, individual, trascendent God. Pandeism (like Spinoza's) is not right, due to the fact that is not a trascendent God, a God beyond Creation.". In January of 2004, one Roncelin de Fos posted a discussion which states that "The labeling of Spinoza's philosophy as "pantheism" by the Church was meant more as an invective and indictment than a true analysis of his writings. It was really a variant of Deism -- a "pandeism," if I may." Now, granted the second guy sounded like he was "coining" the word, but since I'd heard it used before in exactly that context, I can't help thinking that he got it from somewhere - kind of like if someone came up to me and said, "I've invented a device with four legs supporting a flat level surface -- a "table" if I may." There are no references saying "Thomas Jefferson was really a pandeist" or "Augustine was really a pandeist" or "Socrates was really a pandeist" - but I have three (these two and my professor) who have specifically identified Spinoza as a pandeist, and I find that a bit tight for a coincidence. -- BD 24 12  thimk 00:12, 2005 May 2 (UTC)
 * Hi. You mentioned going to the Harvard library to look up the Anacalypsis? While you're there, could you have a look at Madame Blavatsky's The Secret Doctrine? My bet is that she discusses pandeism as well. What did you have in mind, with respect to a comparison to the Flat Earth Society? -- BD 24 12 thi m k 08:17, 2005 May 3 (UTC)

Ramakrishna
dear emyth, sorry for i could not make much contribution to the said article. I agree that the article has not yet become encyclopedic. People are raising many questions in the talk pages, but are remaining anonymous. Sincerely speaking, as far as kali's child is concerned, one should read Tyagananda's book and then see what Kripal has written in its reponse. It is difficult to translate original bengali and the connotation that they carry into english. For example Sri Ramakrishna used, "kamini-kanchan" literally, women and gold as obstactles for god realisation. For reasons, Swami Nikhilananda has translated them into English as women and gold, but has put them under quotes. But in India, if you ask, religious people will say that it implies "lust and greed". There are several such ambiguities based on which kripal seems to have written his thesis.

As far as other content is concerned, even that is not concise and clear. If somebody says sri ramakrishna was "a man of God" (if it means saint) i dont know how it can be termed blatant. So how do i prove/disprove it ? Article on Jesus or Muhammad likewise will say "the son of the God" and "the messanger of the God" ...

Could you request User: Swami Vimokshananda to write an article and replace it. I will also request him. Sri Ramakrishna and Vivekananda are considered as great luminaries of indian renaissance etc. As somebody mentioned, there is no mention of Sri Sarada Devi which is also very ridiculous. I really appreciate your endevour Ramashray

Celestial Marriage
Great stub! We could use your participation in the thriving, mature, and vibrant WP:LDS project! Tom Haws 07:05, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Genesis 1
Something about this article strikes me as not quite right. Any thoughts? -- BD2412 talk 01:31, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Just a note, I've delinked the above, as it redirects to an unrelated article. See  instead. --  Huntster  T • @ • C 06:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of the Seventh-day Adventist Church
The only problem I have with your reference for Walter Martin is that you put in a 1985 book when the text refers to the 1950's.

The other reference however is not really valid as a source for Wikipedia. It seems heavily like Original Research. Its claims are based on selective quotes. It doesnt' portray the entire position of the church at the time it was written, ie. most of the quotes are from the 1800's. I do not see it as being a prominent resource that still claims the church is a cult. Maybe it has to be there for a POV to oppose the other view, but due to its lack of depth, and the OR possibilities, it seems to be ready to go. Ans e  ll  22:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello Ansell...  The Kingdom of the Cults is Walter Martin's great book on this subject and the issue of SDA cult/non-cult status. It went through several editions (including the present one further edited by Ravi Zacharias) and the only edition I could find in the Harvard Divinity School library was the 1985 edition... That's the only citation I could provide. I'll try to check it out and see if it indeed contains the judgements that Martin made re: SDAsm. Regarding the second citation... It's really a link to a website that illustrates the criticism being refered to in our article. Of course it's "original research" ...but that is appropriate when it's outside the Wikipedia. It's the Wikipedia that's not supposed to be original research, not our sources (unless I'm thoroughly confused...but that wouldn't make sense... Somebody has to do original research and publish it. We report on their work and point to it...that's the point of an encyclopedia.)  I think that we need to point to something if we refer to it in our article. Something available on the web is even better. Emyth 23:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Timotheus (musician)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Timotheus (musician), and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Timotheus_(Musician). For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 13:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Ramakrishna
Hey, have you seen Ramakrishna lately? I have been blocked from editing it by the edit warring of the devotees, who have successfully removed the academic perspective from the article. Most amazingly, Wikipedia administration supports the fantasies of the religious devotees. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 13:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Not true. Do not slander my decision please. I suggest you bring your continued bitterness to WP:ANI. Scarian  Call me Pat!  09:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello Goethean, Please hold a moment while I deal with Scarian...


 * Scarian/"Call me Pat!"... Please do NOT use my User talk:Emyth page to justify yourself and scold other members of the community as they try to contact/communicate with me.   It's RUDE, crude, out-of-line, uncivil and indecent...and should be against Wikipedia policy.  Shame on you!!   Your psudo-legalese and specious accusations "slander" point out that you are NOT trust worthy in whatever guardianship you have taken upon yourself for this project.


 * I was quite involved in the early editing of the Ramakrishna article... I added the original Jeffrey Kripal references to the article in what I consider a scholarly attempt to engage truthfully with the subject matter.  I was extremely dismayed at the Ramakrisna Missionaries and their biased, hagiographic, parochial actions/editing/censoring of what I had in good faith added to Wikipedia...  They obviously have a deeply religious agenda - and they do NOT understand scholarly detachment and honesty...they are completely disingenuous "True Believers" of the best/worst kind.


 * I gave up because people like you, "Just Call Me Pat!", in your sophomoric "know-just-enough-to-be-dangerous" states of mind, set yourself up as arbiters and destroy what I used to value about Wikipedia... Because of people like you, I don't trust Wikipedia to be a serious source of unbiased data and information.  I know first-hand how absolutely and corruptly biased it is.  Instead of calling up Wikipedia, I bike over to the Harvard University Libraries to do my research...  I know better than to trust you and your work on Wikipedia. [NOTE: Now that I've read more of your engagements with Goethean, I see where you're coming from - an extremely "pragmatic", "let's just get along...", totally relativistic misunderstanding of the nature of truth, bias, perspective and reality...  Classic comic book, Philosophy/Sociology 100-style undergrad thinking... It's a real pity you have this soapbox... It would NEVER make the cut at the Encyclopedia Britannica...]


 * Now perhaps you Scarian, are actually one of the "good hats" and your insertion of a rude comment into Goethean and my conversation happened on a bad day when you were tired. If so, I will accept your apology and let bygones be bygones.  But if not, just know that I think and feel that you owe me an apology for butting your nose in where it doesn't belong...


 * Goethean... It's been a long time since I actively involved myself in Ramakrisha article editing...  I lost heart and gave up...  It still stings and irritates me, but I don't have the energy to continue fighting the missionaries and their lies...  For they are "lies" to me...Untruths meant to make people think what the missionaries want them to think.  Truths speak for themselves and don't need to be defended...  Lies take constant bolstering to maintain their efficacy...  (Wishful thinking here, no?)  At this point I am so far out of the loop as to be "medieval" with respect to the article.  I haven't the time to pay enough attention to sort the truths from the lies (obviously I am NOT a "Paramahamsa"...lol... :-D ) I am terribly sorry and deeply grieved that the missionaries have "won"...  But in order to survive I must "shake the dust off my sandals and move on.  I am too full of piss and vinegar at this point to deal with sophomoric thinking and the kids who do it.


 * At this point I can't say what would be good for you... Has the long "fight" done something to you that can't be fixed?  Have the "turkeys gotten you down"?  It's hard to "lose", particularly when it happens on such false grounds...  But perhaps it's time to cut your losses and move on to something more rewarding...


 * Perhaps there's another way to kill a cat... Could a "Ramakrishna Controversy" article work?  Links from "Ramakrishna" to it, if destroyed would prove bias...  Vicious editing by missionaries might be made clear...   Perhaps this has already been done... I don't know...


 * Anyway, sorry it took so long to see your comment. All the best... —  Emyth (talk) 14:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Theosophical Society in America_(Hargrove)
Hi Emyth, thanks for your comment about wikifying Hargrove. Actually, the branch in question was not "named" after him, but was only subsequently used by other groups to refer to the group that he was involved in. I don't have time to post a short bio about him now, but will do it later this summer.Jemiljan (talk) 06:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello Jemiljan, I used "named" in its loosest and vaguest sense of a word used to refer to something... The manner in which "Hargrove" is parenthesized makes it clear that the particular situation is complicated.  One figures that out from the article...and so I think that the title of the article is fine.  The German(?) Wikipedia has a medium-sized article about Hargrove, but I don't read German ;-)...  I will await your post.  FWIW, I was trying to find out if Hargrove was indeed the author  of the popular Fra Giovanni's Christmas Greeting...  "I salute you!  There is nothing that I can give you that you don't already have..." which goes on to say "Take Peace!" Emyth (talk) 11:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Emyth. I agree that the name in parens is clumsy, but will live with it, given the problems.  The German article was the original basis for this English language one, but I subsequently expanded it, adding the names of certain prominent TS members involved. To answer your question, yes, Hargrove was indeed the actual author of the Fra Giovanni letter.  This was revealed in an article published in the NY Times shortly after his death, in which his close friend Henry Bedinger Mitchell verified this fact.  The book "Heroes and Saints" by Max L. Christensen (see preview on | Google books) mentions that another friend of Hargrove's, G.M.W.  Kobbe also revealed that Hargrove was the true author.  The writer, poet, and artist Christopher Morley beautifully illustrated the original card in medieval style.  Unfortunately, I have not seen an image of that card on the internet.  I suspect that the letter was written to Genevieve Griscom, a.k.a. "Cavé", who was considered by many to be the "inner head" of that group.Jemiljan (talk) 05:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Robert V. Gentry
An article that you have been involved in editing, Robert V. Gentry, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Borock (talk) 06:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Seventh-day Adventist Church
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as you have made a number of contributions to the article. I have found some concerns which you can see at Jezhotwells (talk) 01:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

April 2015

 * OK. So please explain your relationship to RJR3333.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 15:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Anthony Bradbury, I mentioned to Tiptoety before that I don't think that Emyth is RJR3333/FDR (well, I essentially stated that); see User talk:Tiptoety/Archive 37. RJR3333/FDR has recently responded to the matter. Given that WP:CheckUsers can get different results (see an example in this section), I think that you should get another WP:CheckUser to look into this. Flyer22 (talk) 00:04, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I did not impose the block, I have not refused unblock, and I have accused nobody of sockpuppetry. I have asked a simple question, which has gone unanswered by the editor to whom I addressed it. I do not see why it is assumed that I either can or should ask for checkuser input. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 09:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Anthony Bradbury, you are a WP:Administrator and you asked Emyth, "OK. So please explain your relationship to RJR3333." I assumed that you are considering unblocking Emyth, but that you first want to make sure that you are not unblocking a WP:Sockpuppet; and that if you do, the WP:Sockpuppeting will not continue. Therefore, I provided you with information on this matter and a suggestion above. And if you are not interested in unblocking Emyth, maybe another WP:Administrator will be; so that information and suggestion I provided above is for any other WP:Administrator as well. Flyer22 (talk) 10:12, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

For information, I would like it noted that I have been e-mailed several times by PaulBustian88, who according to the published checkuser evidence is also a sockpuppet of RJR3333.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 09:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Correction; PaulBustion88. --<b style="color:red;">Anthony Bradbury</b><sup style="color:black;">"talk" 09:47, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Flyer22, please do not make assumptions about what I intend to do. You know, or should know, that an ordinary admin is very unlikely to overturn a checkuser block. But attempting to clarify the situation is wholly acceptable. I note that Emyth has still not answered my question. --<b style="color:red;">Anthony Bradbury</b><sup style="color:black;">"talk" 16:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Anthony Bradbury, I commonly make assumptions, and, obviously, so do other people when interacting with others; it is human nature, and Wikipedia is no different. Making assumptions is one way that I often work well with other Wikipedia editors or catch WP:Sockpuppets. I did not think that you were going to overturn the block without first weighing the matter at hand; I know that WP:Administrators consult with the blocking WP:CheckUser and/or another WP:CheckUser first in the case of a WP:CheckUser block, but, considering your question to Emyth, I do not see how it was wrong of me to assume that you were considering whether or not the block is justified. I cannot stop my mind from jumping to a conclusion based on something that is stated or seen. That stated, since you took offense to one or more aspects of my comments above, I apologize. I am done here. But I think it is very unlikely that Emyth is RJR3333/FDR; and I'm speaking as someone very familiar with RJR3333/FDR's editing style/who has caught his WP:Socks time and time again. Flyer22 (talk) 00:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Re: April 2015
I have NO RELATION to RJR3333 other than I would have to any other random Wikipedia user.

As I explained, I only visit Wikipedia periodically... Your insistence on a short turn-around before ignoring my messages is unfortunate. Your rush to judgment is "cruel and unusual"...as well as unhelpful. If that's NOT an explanation and enough to finish off this problem, I have no idea what to do...  I have neither the time, nor energy to go in further...  I have real work in real universities to do...

As a professor of Composition and Writing at universities in Indianapolis I teach first year students in their introductory courses... I have been sympathetic to Wikipedia and open to its use in the Academy.

If you persist in this false accusation and byzantine requirements for clearing it up... I will simply wash my hands of you and leave Wikipedia behind. If you persist in this silliness, I shall keep it as an example of the short-comings and failings of Wikipedia and FORBID my studenta at University from using Wikipedia as a source...

Your trumped up sense of authority and judgment are uncivil and macho... These are NOT qualities of humane critical thinking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emyth (talk • contribs).


 * Hello, Emyth. I have taken the matter to WP:AN. I am sorry that you have gotten caught up in this and have been treated unfairly. Flyer22 (talk) 12:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you... I will continue to use and periodically contribute to Wikipedia...  And I will teach my students to use Wikipedia responsibly... Emyth (talk) 17:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Unblocked
Following the discussion at WP:AN, I have unblocked your account. Apologies for the inconvenience, but this is a common occurrence where many people edit from one institution. Thank you, Black Kite (talk) 11:30, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Here is a WP:Permalink version of the discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 00:34, 7 July 2015 (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) 22:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)