User talk:JimMillerJr/Archive 2

Avatar 3O edit
Jim, good opinion and it settled the dispute. I withdrew from the field once one of the disputants conceded. My opinion, had I issued it, would have been that the inclusion of any meaning for the name would have been inappropriate original research, unless the creators of the series had verifiably made a point of the name's meaning. That opinion would have been made wearing my "Third Opinion Wikipedian hat" (hmm ... interesting possibility for a graphic) but just as another WikiJoe I don't think the inclusion does any great harm to the goals of Wikipedia, so I'm just as glad your opinion did the trick for them. Best regards, T RANSPORTER M AN  (TALK ) 19:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

List of eponymous streets in Hudson County
I just happened to start this page because I wanted to save some work that was removed (and probably rightfully so) from Jersey City article. Hadn't really expected it would get attention, and wasn't really planning to invest alot time to it, but rather just add on as I came across things that were appropriate for it. Thanks for the tip. Will give a look at JC mayors sometime, but pleae feel free if your so inclined.Djflem (talk) 22:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of List of eponymous streets in Hudson County
I have nominated List of eponymous streets in Hudson County, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/List of eponymous streets in Hudson County. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. talk 22:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Just received this message. Don't know if you'd be interested to chime in. That you took an interest made consider it more. Opinion? (By the way, if I come across anything for Mr. Tonnele, I send it your way)Djflem (talk) 01:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Notification: Proposed 'Motion to Close' at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at this page. Jusdafax  04:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Brian Duprey
Did you miss my point? Duprey is the only Maine state legislator outside leadership who has not run for higher office with an article. Again, the only. This is true of many, many other states. Rank-and-file legislators from small-to-medium sized states are generally not considered notable by Wikipedia standards - especially former legislators. Moreover, 167 hits on the internet is hardly notable; that's practically non-existent. Persons with thousands of hits have had their articles deleted due to lack of notability, and anyway, number of search results is an invalid measure of notability. You should revise your reply to fit guidelines. XINOPH | TALK 21:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * While I am surprised that the coverage of the Maine Legislature is so badly incomplete, I did not miss your point at all. All State legislators are considered notable according to the guideline due to the fact that there will be reliable sources which provide significant coverage of them by the nature of their position. And there is no difference in notability between current and former members of a state-wide legislative body. I cited the appropriate guideline in my keep rationale, but the subject passes the GNG anyway. The fact that sources exist but have not yet been added to the article is not sufficient grounds for deletion either. If I had access to the newspapers found in that search, I would glady add the available sources to the article.  Jim Miller  See me 21:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal
After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;


 * gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and


 * ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Important notice about VOTE 3 in the CDA poll
You are receiving this message as you have voted in VOTE 3 at the Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll.

It has been pointed out that VOTE 3 was confusing, and that voters have been assuming that the question was about creating an actual two-phase CDA process. The question is merely about having a two-phase poll on CDA at the eventual RfC, where the community will have their vote (eg a "yes/no for CDA” poll, followed a choice of proposal types perhaps).

As I wrote the question, I'll take responsibility for the confusion. It does make sense if read through to the end, but it certainly wasn't as clear as it should have been, or needed to be!

Please amend your vote if appropriate - it seems that many (if not most) people interpreted the question in the way that was not intended.

Regards, Matt Lewis (talk) 15:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

NJ Governor refs
The edit is but unfortunately for learning, I just tacked it on to the existing acting governor note for Corzine. :) A short explanation...


 * If it's just a simple reference, it of course goes into.
 * If it's a footnote, it goes in group N, for notes,.
 * Now here's the tricky part. If it's a footnote that cites a reference, then we need to hack it a little, because tags are not nestable. But there's a system hack we can use; by doing {{#tag:ref|, we tell the system to implement the ref tag, without actually calling the ref tag. At least that's how I think it works. So then you can write the footnote normally, and fill it with as many s as you like. It still works like a template, so at the end, you do the |, and then your arguments, like group='N' and name='foobar', separated by |s each time. And then close the template. It's not exactly elegant, but it was a godsend when I found out about it. --Golbez (talk) 15:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Award from: Article Rescue Squadron Hall of Fame
Congratulations, you have been inducted into the Article Rescue Squadron Hall of Fame for the second time! This time for helping to save Peter Medgyessy by adding sources. I added the award to your user page.

Feel free to add more articles saved awards to your page, and to award other people this award too, for saving articles from deletion on Wikipedia. Ikip 22:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject New Jersey Newsletter (January 2010)

 * Newsletter delivery by xenobot  13:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Liberty Island
I have recetly done a major re-write on Liberty Island. There is some question as to wording and inclusion in certain categories. There is a request for comment on the talk page. If you are interested your input would be of value since there have been conflicts bordering on edit war. Thanks.Djflem (talk) 07:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Drafts
Meh. It looked ready to me (although on closer inspection I guess not), and you hadn't touched it in weeks. Just trying to be helpful.

It's back. DS (talk) 02:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Your VOTE 2 vote at CDA
Hi JimMillerJr,

you are receiving this message as you voted in VOTE 2 at the recent Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll. Unfortunately, there is a hitch regarding the "none" vote that can theoretically affect all votes.

1) Background of VOTE 2:

In a working example of CDA; ater the 'discussion and polling phase' is over, if the "rule of thumb" baseline percentage for Support votes has been reached, the bureaucrats can start to decide whether to desysop an admin, based in part on the evidence of the prior debate. This 'baseline' has now been slightly-adjusted to 65% (from 70%) per VOTE 1. VOTE 2 was asking if there is a ballpark area where the community consensus is so strong, that the bureaucrats should consider desysopping 'automatically'. This 'threshold' was set at 80%, and could change pending agreement on the VOTE 2 results.

This was VOTE 2;


 * Do you prefer a 'desysop threshold' of 80% or 90%, or having none at all?


 * As a "rule of thumb", the Bureaucrats will automatically de-sysop the Administrator standing under CDA if the percentage reaches this 'threshold'. Currently it is 80% (per proposal 5.4).


 * Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

This is the VOTE 2 question without any ambiguity;


 * Do you prefer a "rule of thumb" 'auto-desysop' percentage of 80%, 90%, or "none"?


 * Where "none" means that there is no need for a point where the bureaucrats can automatically desysop.


 * Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

2) What was wrong with VOTE 2?

Since the poll, it has been suggested that ambiguity in the term "none at all" could have affected some of the votes. Consequently there has been no consensus over what percentage to settle on, or how to create a new compromise percentage. The poll results are summarised here.

3)  How to help:

Directly below this querying message, please can you;


 * Clarify what you meant if you voted "none".


 * In cases where the question was genuinely misunderstood, change your initial vote if you wish to (please explain the ambiguity, and don't forget to leave a second choice if you have one).


 * Please do nothing if you interpreted the question correctly (or just confirm this if you wish), as this query cannot be a new vote.

I realise that many of you clarified your meaning after your initial vote, but the only realistic way to move forward is to be as inclusive as possible in this vote query. Sorry for the inconvenience,

Matt Lewis (talk) 10:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Anthony R. Cucci
Great hook! Have you considered adding a photo of the Statue of Library to the article, or proposing that such a photo be included with the hook? Nyttend (talk) 02:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Odonyms in Hudson County, New Jersey
Here is something I started that may be of interest to you. I have not tagged/categorized it just yet (and would prefer wait til there's an intro ie, explaining abbrevaitions) but thought that you might have a look and add if would. Structure is pretty easy to follow, if tedious.Djflem (talk) 03:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Welcome
Okip  10:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons/Contest
The rules of the contest have been changed significantly since you signed up. Please check out the new page and its subpages. Any input as to how to improve any part of it would be greatly welcomed. J04n(talk page) 02:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:
 * 1) Proposal to Close This RfC
 * 2) Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip  02:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject New Jersey
I think you messed something up since now, every page with WikiProject New Jersey on it is showing up at CAT:SD. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It was just the pages that had /Comments subpages. I apparently should have deleted the COMMENT= parameters from the template prior to the tagging. Unfortunately, other WP banners still have COMMENT= params. WPBiography and some others caused the transcluded G6 tag to include the pages in the category. Now that the /Comments pages have been deleted, it should clear up in a minute or two. Thanks.  Jim Miller  See me 15:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

BLP contest
Hi, I saw your edit summary from opting out of the BLP contest and I'm sorry you feel that way. We were making the rules/points up as we went along. Feel free to bring up changing the point structure on the talkpage and maybe we can have something different for April that will make everyone happy. I actully would have been happy with 1 point for each page removed from the backlog period, but these things never seem to be as easy as one would hope. Anyway, take care J04n(talk page) 21:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Hudson County
It's just getting started, but I've been notified of your great contributions to Hudson County articles. If you are interested, please join, we could use the help! Hudson County Task Force - Theornamentalist (talk) 00:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, I am having trouble generating the assessment table for Hudson County related articles; it looks like you may have had a hand in putting together the one for NJ's. So far, I have changed the NJ banners' parameters to include one for Hudson County (and adopting its rating/importance) as well as added this to the banner in one articles' talk page (Shippen Street (Weehawken). At this point, I am lost. Can you help out? - Theornamentalist (talk) 16:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Rescue
Articles for deletion/Armageddon theology WritersCramp (talk) 13:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Pulaski Skyway
As there is a discussion regarding how to define the Pulaski Skyway in light of contradictory information and opinions your input would be appreciated Djflem (talk) 07:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

People list guideline
Jim: thanks for helping out with the effort to clarify the WP:LISTPEOPLE guideline. You wrote something I agree with: "[Guidelines] are supposed to be descriptive, and not to be prescriptive".  I agree that the existing lists throughout WP have been the result of years of consensus-building, and they reflect what the guideline should be. I think the guideline should be updated to reflect the reality of the Alumni and Eagle Scout lists, for example. However, there are editors who feel the opposite, and think the current guideline is good, and they would claim that many WP lists should be pruned  and - in some cases - eliminated. For that reason, I view the improvements to WP:LISTPEOPLE  as a two step process: Step 1 will be fairly hard, since many editors like keeping the status quo; and other editors just like being obstructionists. Step 2 will be really hard. Combining both into a single step is guaranteed to lead to failure, in my opinion. Anyway, thanks, and I hope we can make some progress. --Noleander (talk) 03:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Clarify the wording of the current guideline (without significantly changing the meaning of the guideline's text)
 * 2) Change the guideline's guidance to reflect the widespread consensus reflected in WP's lists

Eagle Scout and alumni lists
Jim: I've started a new section on your suggestion about Eagle Scout and alumni lists, at: Wikipedia_talk:Stand-alone_lists. Your input would be appreciated. --Noleander (talk) 20:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

assessment of Pahaquarry Copper Mine
Jim,

First thanks for the assessment.

You wrote:

I have assessed this as Start Class for a few minor reasons. I would probably call this a C-Class article except for these items:
 * Duplicate entries in the Bilbliography and Further reading sections
 * The sections seem to be in an unusual order - History, then Geology, then Legends would make more sense to me

My response:

The duplicate entries are from references in the Bibliography, harvard style references, that are also good general reading. This was done to correct problems found on my initial draft by User:Chzz. So the Bibliography is part of the references, but it sounds like further reading. Is there a better way?

The order of the sections results from my emphasis on trying to debunk the legends. What once was known rumor has become fact. I'm currently working on the Schuyler Copper Mine and will eventually tie them together. Does that make more sense?

Thanks,

Zeete (talk) 20:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Hudson County templates
Yes, we did settle it, which is why I was surprised to see Alan restoring those templates. The degree of material in each city's article that is not related to that city was setttled at the end of this discussion in August 2009, so I don't know why all the material not relevant to Bayonne is being restored. Mentioning which districts it's in is perfectly valid. Going into detail about the representative makeup of those districts is not. "Completeness" regarding that material belongs in articles on that district. Not in the article on one of its cities. New Jersey is part of the United States, but that doesn't mean we mention that Barack Obama is President of the U.S. in the New Jersey article. We've already been over this.

As for naming Anthony Chiappone, that was an error on my part. Sorry about that. Nightscream (talk) 03:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I have not stifled or attempted to stifle discussion, nor does anything I said carry that meaning or implication. That the matter was decided is simply a question of fact. Yes, consensus can change, but Alan has not provided any evidence to conclude that it may have. But I am not required to assume that consensus may have changed, and start a new discussion myself or notify other editors, every time someone edits an article against a prior consensus, as Alan indicated on that talk page. Nightscream (talk) 20:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I did not infer any such meaning from you regarding Alan vs. myself. As for change, I do not oppose change, since, as an adherent of skepticism, the provisional nature of all ideas is a fundamental part of knowledge. But so far, Alan has not explained how or why consensus has changed, so his restoring those templates came across as him simply disregarding consensus, perhaps in the hope that no one would notice, and his statement that I did not notify anyone or discuss my reverts came across as backwards, since it was he, not I, who was editing against an established consensus, and therefore, he who should've discussed this before restoring those templates, but chose not to.


 * The fact that such templates are used in other city articles does not constitute evidence that consensus has changed. It constitutes evidence that those articles are not in accordance with that consensus. The discussion we had in 2009 was on the Project NJ discussion page, not the Hudson County talk page, and the principles that I cited in arguing that those templates do not belong in city articles were not specific to Hudson County. My arguments now are the same as then: Material not about a city does not belong in an article on that city. If those templates are being used in articles about cities in other counties, then they need to be removed from those as well. The rationale your describe essentially boils down to "Well, those other city articles violate that consensus, so instead of editing those articles to bring them in line with that consensus, let's instead pretend that that constitutes evidence that the consensus has changed". To revise a conclusion, you need to explain the flaws in the reasoning or evidence on which that conclusion is predicated. Nothing about the reasoning I have pointed out regarding why those templates do not belong in city articles has been invalidated, as no one could (or bothered trying to) refute it in the 2009 discussion. All your pointing out is that people have not followed the decision based on it. Nightscream (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Hudson Task
Regarding: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Jersey/Hudson County Task Force, wonder if you have any thoughts 13:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I am representing former Hoboken (New Jersey) Mayor David Roberts. We have tried several times to correct the biography posted here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Roberts_%28mayor%29

It contains a number of inaccuracies and does not include the entire scope of his eight years as mayor or any information about his life before he became mayor.

Our updated biography has been removed a number of times. Please advise me on how we can make this change.

Thanks for your attention.

David Cruz email me at davidcruz1962@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.0.210 (talk) 21:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Hoboken mayors
I have an account at Ancestry.com, so I have access to records to find births and deaths. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Mayors of Hoboken, New Jersey
Why is the default sort not working and some people are listed under the Greek letter mu? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Harmony House
Thanks. It's always the most obvious solution. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Ponyo
Hi Jim. With all  due respect (it  was after all a 'neutral' and not  an 'oppose'), it appears (to  me at  least) that your neutral !vote is based solely on your own single experience with this candidate and does not take a holistic view of the candidate's performance. This is among some of the !voting trends that many concerned Wikipedians are trying to  get  changed at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship where any suggestions you  can make to  help  RfA become a fairer and more pleasant  experience would be most  welcome. Regards, --Kudpung (talk) 00:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, and was trying to be fair about it but did not want to leave it unsaid. I have spent some more time looking at her other contributions, and will most likely be moving to support. I purposely put it in neutral with the intent of deciding after I had more time to review her record. That experience was only the day before the AfD went live, and it is still inappropriate to draw attention to the editor rather than the edit, but I will decide based on the entirety of her record. In the mean time, if that single neutral gets other !voters to actually look into the nominee's record, and ignore the questions portion, AfD will be a better place.  Jim Miller  See me 01:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Nice to see you
Reading your edits on my Wikipedia page. Do you desire additional information? A bit frustrating to be characterized as a pol when that is a very small fraction of my life. I have no idea how to contact you other than thru this. You can easily get my email from my firm's web addresss thx DavidLGanz (talk) 05:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC) david l ganz

John Tonnele
You once inquired. Maybe a lead on page (or did you write it?)Djflem (talk) 22:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, I wrote it. Had enough to make the stub until I find more.  Jim Miller  See me 18:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I actually meant the Times article....written by a Jonathon Miller....Djflem (talk) 07:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Elizabeth
List of Neighborhoods in Elizabeth, New Jersey can redirect, but can we keep the category on the re-direct page, so one can find it from that place?Djflem (talk) 07:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

replied
I replied on my talk page.Griswaldo (talk) 23:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

RE: Francisco Foglia
Delete that now! it's a hoax I did many years ago when I didn't take Wikipedia seriously. Francisco Foglia is a friend of mine, but everything in that article is just a product of our substance-enhanced imagination.

The fact that it has survived for 4 and a half years though makes me a bit proud. Could it be moved to User:Fache/Francisco Foglia before deleting it please? Thanks in advance. Regards. Fache (talk) 22:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Re to Ret Prof:
I read your response. Well put and persuasive. Something to think about. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Reviewer
Just in case it turns out useful I've set the reviewer flag on your account.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  13:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Spliced
Can you put an end to this edit war already? I can't get through to Girloveswaffles that their re-adding the info without discussion isn't helping. They'll discuss, then go back and re-spam all the indiscriminate info. ALL of it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

IRC invitation
Because I have noticed you commenting at the current RfC regarding Pending Changes, I wanted to invite you to the IRC channel for pending changes. If you are not customarily logged into the IRC, use this link. This under used resource can allow real time discussion at this particularly timely venture of the trial known as Pending Changes. Even if nothing can come from debating points there, at least this invitation is delivered with the best of intentions and good faith expectations. Kind regards.  My 76 Strat  08:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

NJ Legislative maps
Hey Chris, I see you're on a break, but I was wondering if you could do new maps for the NJ Legislative districts like the ones you did for 2001? The new maps from the state for numbering have been released here. I have no graphic talents, so if you can't I will look for someone else. Thanks.  Jim Miller  See me 16:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey Jim, I used the shape files here to generate the previous map.  There was no graphic talent involved. :)  If/when those files are updated, I can try to generate a new SVG.  --ChrisRuvolo (t) 21:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Looks like a map has already been made, see here: File:New Jersey Legislative Districts Map (2011).svg. No idea how accurate this is though.  --ChrisRuvolo (t) 21:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I had already come across that and used it in the new article I made today. I have asked that user about maps for the Newark and Jersey City divisions as well, so I will see if he responds. Hadn't had a chance to let you know. Thanks.  Jim Miller  See me 21:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Librarian Barnstar
Thanks for the barnstar! I really appreciate it. The article looks good so far, and I'm glad I was able to help. Superm401 - Talk 05:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Lincoln Park (Jersey City, New Jersey)
Hello! Your submission of Lincoln Park (Jersey City, New Jersey) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Waiting, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Please have a look if you can live with ALT3, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Without you, it was transferred to prep. I hope you will not miss it, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Lincoln Park (Jersey City, New Jersey)
Materialscientist (talk) 12:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Thank you for editing this page. Everytime you do, a kitten is adopted by a gay couple/family. smooches!

Jamesbrazil (talk) 00:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC) 

DRV
A notification that the Templates for Discussion discussion (oy, repetition) has been taken to a deletion review discussion. The Article Rescue Squadron was notified, and as notifications to previous involved parties isn't normal practise, I and a few ARS members agreed that, in the interests of transparency and fairness, we should let everyone know...hence this talkpage message ;).

If anyone has an issue with me sending these out, do drop me a note on my talkpage. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 10:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page. In this issue: Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->
 * Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
 * Research: The most recent DR data
 * Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
 * Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
 * DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
 * Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
 * Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Feast day listed at Redirects for discussion
I have asked for a discussion to address the redirect Feast day. You might want to participate in the redirect discussion. You are receiving this message because you are a member of WikiProject Catholicism and/or WikiProject Saints --Jayarathina (talk) 12:56, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of George W. Morton for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article George W. Morton 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/George W. Morton until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Frederick B. Ogden for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Frederick B. Ogden 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/Frederick B. Ogden until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Hazen Kimball for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hazen Kimball 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/Hazen Kimball until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Frederick L. Schmersahl for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Frederick L. Schmersahl 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/Frederick L. Schmersahl until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Steve Cappiello for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Steve Cappiello 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/Steve Cappiello until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Patrick Pasculli for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Patrick Pasculli 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/Patrick Pasculli until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Possible removal of AWB access due to inactivity
Hello! There is currently a request for approval of a bot to manage the AutoWikiBrowser CheckPage by removing inactive users, among other tasks. You are being contacted because you may qualify as an inactive user of AWB. First, if you have any input on the proposed bot task, please feel free to comment at the BRFA. Should the bot task be approved, your access to AWB may be uncontroversially removed if you do not resume editing within a week's time. This is purely for routine maintenance of the CheckPage, and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You will be able regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

DYK for New Jersey Rockin' Rollers
Vanamonde (talk) 03:30, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to you
I welcome to you sir — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flykites (talk • contribs) 03:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)