User talk:Jackattack1597

Your close of Articles for deletion/Fencer of Minerva
It was a good close, I just wanted to point out in the count it’s actually a 5-2. Don’t forget about the nominator as well. Generally if they are doing a procedural or proxy nomination they will mention so in there nomination it self. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 21:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Good point, sorry that I forgot to count the nominator, glad I didn't close as a straight keep. I'm relieved that I got that one right, since I don't usually do closures, but I am trying to get more experienced with closures when I can find ones that aren't super heated.Jackattack1597 (talk) 00:15, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Your response to my edit in Miss World 1951
Hello, by the way it's Cam Drawel here. May I know which part of the page I deleted? The anonymous contestant one? Sorry about that, I just realized that you had just deleted a section which you had inserted yourself, I'll be more careful next time. I already removed the warning on your talk page.Jackattack1597 (talk) 13:34, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Lawrence Brooks (American veteran) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lawrence Brooks (American veteran) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Lawrence Brooks (American veteran) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ThurstonMitchell (talk) 09:52, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for participating in my RFA
I especially appreciate your lack of concern. ;-)  Please feel invited to call on me if you see something of which I should be aware, especially if I'm the culprit. BusterD (talk) 21:10, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited South Carolina Senate, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Brian Adams and Vernon Stephens. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 05:58, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

AfC for Vaush
I recently created a draft for an article on Vaush. However, upon seeing that an article on him was recently deleted at Articles for deletion/Vaush, I decided to put the article through the AfC process instead of moving it straight to mainspace. If you have any comments feel free to discuss the draft page at its talk page Draft talk:Vaush. Thanks. Alduin2000 (talk) 20:27, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

RfA 2021 review update
Thanks so much for participating in Phase 1 of the RfA 2021 review. 8 out of the 21 issues discussed were found to have consensus. Thanks to our closers of Phase 1, and.

The following had consensus support of participating editors:
 * 1) Corrosive RfA atmosphere
 * The atmosphere at RfA is deeply unpleasant. This makes it so fewer candidates wish to run and also means that some members of our community don't comment/vote.
 * 1) Level of scrutiny
 * Many editors believe it would be unpleasant to have so much attention focused on them. This includes being indirectly a part of watchlists and editors going through your edit history with the chance that some event, possibly a relatively trivial event, becomes the focus of editor discussion for up to a week.
 * 1) Standards needed to pass keep rising
 * It used to be far easier to pass RfA however the standards necessary to pass have continued to rise such that only "perfect" candidates will pass now.
 * 1) Too few candidates
 * There are too few candidates. This not only limits the number of new admin we get but also makes it harder to identify other RfA issues because we have such a small sample size.
 * 1) "No need for the tools" is a poor reason as we can find work for new admins

The following issues had a rough consensus of support from editors: 1. Lifetime tenure (high stakes atmosphere) Because RfA carries with it lifetime tenure, granting any given editor sysop feels incredibly important. This creates a risk adverse and high stakes atmosphere.

2. Admin permissions and unbundling There is a large gap between the permissions an editor can obtain and the admin toolset. This brings increased scrutiny for RFA candidates, as editors evaluate their feasibility in lots of areas.

3. RfA should not be the only road to adminship Right now, RfA is the only way we can get new admins, but it doesn't have to be.

Please consider joining the brainstorming which will last for the next 1-2 weeks. This will be followed by Phase 2, a 30 day discussion to consider solutions to the problems identified in Phase 1. There are 2 future mailings planned. One when Phase 2 opens and one with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Best, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

List of governors of California by age has also been included in the nomination with List of governors of Texas by age. OCNative (talk) 22:23, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

RfA Reform 2021 Phase 2 has begun
Following a 2 week brainstorming period and a 1 week proposal period, the 30 day discussion of changes to our Request for Adminship process has begun. Following feedback on Phase 1, in order to ensure that the largest number of people possible can see all proposals, new proposals will only be accepted for the for the first 7 days of Phase 2. The 30 day discussion is scheduled to last until November 30. Please join the discussion or even submit your own proposal.

There is 1 future mailing planned with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. 16:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

RFA 2021 Completed
The 2021 re-examination of RFA has been completed. 23 (plus 2 variants) ideas were proposed. Over 200 editors participated in this final phase. Three changes gained consensus and two proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration. Thanks to all who helped to close the discussion, and in particular, , and for closing the most difficult conversations and for  for closing the review of one of the closes.

The following proposals gained consensus and have all been implemented:
 * 1) Revision of standard question 1 to Special thanks to  for help with implementation.
 * 2) A new process, Administrative Action Review (XRV) designed to review if an editor's specific use of an advanced permission, including the admin tools, is consistent with policy in a process similar to that of deletion review and move review. Thanks to all the editors who contributed (and are continuing to contribute) to the discussion of how to implement this proposal.
 * 3) Removal of autopatrol from the administrator's toolkit. Special thanks to and  for their help with implementation.

The following proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration:
 * 1) An option for people to run for temporary adminship ( proposal, discussion, & close )
 * 2) An optional election process ( proposal & discussion and close review & re-close )

Editors who wish to discuss these ideas or other ideas on how to try to address any of the six issues identified during phase 1 for which no proposal gained are encouraged to do so at RFA's talk page or an appropriate village pump.

A final and huge thanks all those who participated in this effort to improve our RFA process over the last 4 months. This is the final update with no further talk page messages planned. 01:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Krakoa for deletion.
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Krakoa is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Krakoa (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Nekivik (talk) 08:35, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, Jackattack1597. Thank you for your work on 1997 Virginia Attorney General election. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with. Please remember to sign your reply with ~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

&maltese; SunDawn &maltese;   (contact)   11:41, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 20
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tennessee Senate, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brent Taylor.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Totalitarian architecture (2nd nomination) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Totalitarian architecture (2nd nomination) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Totalitarian architecture (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Paragon Deku (talk) 03:58, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Wyandot Nation of Anderdon, with headquarters in Trenton, Michigan
Hello - Thank you for creating Wyandot Nation of Kansas!

I just saw on Wyandot people that there is another unrecognized group in Trenton, Michigan and was wondering (hoping) that perhaps you would be interested in creating an article for that as well?

Kindest regards, Gjs238 (talk) 14:24, 5 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I created an article for them, but I am honestly not sure if it meets notability standards.Jackattack1597 (talk) 15:53, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

 * You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. 

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Minor incorrect data for districts.
Hello! Thank you for making presidential data district maps! I've noticed that there are some incorrect district data in most of the maps, but I have fixed some of them. I wanted to show you this website so it could be easier to access the correct data for each district GatewayPolitics (talk) 00:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @Jackattack1597 oh and here is the official presidential hex codes for colors WikiProject Elections and Referendums/USA legend colors GatewayPolitics (talk) 00:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for letting me know; I had not realized that there were discrepancies in the data I was using, and thank you so much for fixing the maps I already uploaded. Jackattack1597 (talk) 01:06, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, no problem! GatewayPolitics (talk) 17:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)