User talk:Lawfare

Speedy deletion nomination of The National Center for Law & Policy


A tag has been placed on The National Center for Law & Policy requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that your page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the page be "userfied" or emailed to you. Davidjohn13 (talk) 05:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I removed the speedy tag, since I think the group may be notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I was shocked to see a page scheduled for immediate "speedy deletion" when it was brand new and needed time to be built.  Now I see that editor himself has been speedily deleted: "This account is a sock puppet of Vrghs jacob and has been blocked indefinitely."  Given that, would it be okay for me to remove the "sock puppet" deletion notice from my Talk page? Thanks. Lawfare (talk) 23:33, 27 February 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) 16:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Important Notice
Doug Weller talk 19:25, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

August 2020
This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, as you did at Talk:Laura Loomed, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Doug Weller talk 19:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I added a section to the Talk page, not the Wikipedia page. I thought that’s how it’s supposed to be done, you talk, people discuss, then a change is or is not made. I do not understand the hostility and threat you just made. Further, the URLs I suggested were only suggested as examples, not as URLs to be added. Further, the URLs were not defamatory in the slightest. Just the opposite. They showed the defamatory claims on the Wikipedia page were in fact defamatory in that they defamed the subject of the BLP. The URLs proved the defamatory claim of being a conspiracy theorist to be false. I suggested in the Talk page that was the case so it could be talked about. I made no edits to the Wikipedia page. I do not understand your reversal of my Talk suggestion and the terse threat to delete me forever just because I added a comment to a Talk page. Please reverse the Talk page removal so people can talk about it.

Further, I made a secondary valid point that the article labels her a conspiracy theorist in part based on her association with others alleged to be conspiracy theorists. That’s guilt by association, is not encyclopedic, and can never have any reliable sources to prove guilt by association.

Show me the policies that require Talk page edit reversals about perfectly legitimate topics of conversation and that allow immediate closure of account threats.

Then restore my Talk page comments and allow the Talk to proceed. You have permission to modify my comments to remove whatever you believed to be worthy of the instant axe.

Thank you. Lawfare (talk) 05:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions Notice - American Politics
power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 03:32, 12 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Cool. You haven’t seen me violate anything, have you? --Lawfare (talk) 03:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)