User talk:Screwball23

Bert Oliva went well! Until...
...It got deleted. Hi Screwball23, hope everything is well! I need your help; the page: "Bert Oliva" was deleted because they said it was a recreation of an older version. I worked with other people including yourself on creating new material, verbiage and references. How can I get this turned around? I think this wasn't a valid deletion.

Thank you very much for your time and help! --Michaelparks (talk) 17:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Help Needed
Hi, my name is Michael Parks and I am a student at FIU in Miami, Florida. My current college project involves me, and those who i find to help me, redo the "Bert Oliva" page. I was hoping that you could help because i see that you have helped out with Tony Robbins, and Bert Oliva is like the 'Latin' Tony Robbins...

Well I barely get all these wikipedia rules so if you could somehow help that would be greatly appreciated! The page can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Michaelparks/Bert_Oliva

Thank you very much for all of your help! --Michaelparks (talk) 17:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Little Green
Thanks for the suggestions. I'll be looking into that second article sometime this week. I think the history on pro wrestling article is nicely writted, although I bet some people complain about it being relatively unsourced. If I find anytihng to help it out, I will. Thanks for the ideas and the comments.--ProtoWolf 03:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Why the CM Punk article is "boring"
Because that's all there is to it. Part of the wikipedia mantra on FA's is that if it can survive AfD it can become a featured article and the idea behind making CM Punk an FA started back in September of last year because, unlike articles such as Bret Hart or The Undertaker, this was a significantly less important and visible wrestler. Most attempts to make the article passionate would be seen as NPOV violations and would really be trying to make small things seem large when it's not the point of the article - has he been a world champion? Yes. Has he been a world champion in a television federation? No.

There is no such thing as an "FA that shouldn't be" because an FA does not judge the topic, only the article. If FA's were judged by topic no one would spend time making featured articles on The Bus Uncle, Infinite Monkey Theorem or Japanese Toilet. Noticeably different from those article is that the Punk article is a BLP and as a BLP must adhere strongly to neutrality.

Could the prose be written better? Probably but I specifically can not see how without losing information or really adding things equivalent to weasel words in the article. –– Lid(Talk) 00:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Just as a note Montreal Screwjob has yet to be today's featured article. –– Lid(Talk) 00:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Your Sig
Could you alternate your signature I can't read the L's on your signature.-- Ho rn et ma n16 (talk) 19:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Good verse.-- Ho rn et ma n16 (talk) 01:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Randy Orton
So I'm supposed to shit myself over what? yeah it's "nice" but dances on the border of being Original Research and has other issues that with the likes of Peacock terms. An example - your interpretation that Orton's participation in the Elimination Chamber showed that he was ready to be a main eventer, that's a subjective judgement - you can't say ALL participants in ALL Elimination Chambers have shown themselves to be ready to main event (Chris Masters??) nor does being in a high profile match always mean that you are ready. It's your interpretation, but this is an encylopedia it's not a wrestling profile site. Look I'm not saying this to be a bitch but from experience of putting articles up for GA or seen other wrestling related articles fail GA because they don't conform to the Wikipedia standards. MPJ-DK 04:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

John Cena infobox image
Could you please comment on which image you would prefer to be featured in the infobox on John Cena's page. Thanks.-- Kip   Smithers  22:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

the WrestleCrap book
Well the book is basically a longer, more detailed version of the wrestlecrap website which features 2-3 different items a week (or is it month right now?) it does deal with the way the WWE's "family oriented" gimmicks lead to some HORRIBLE ideas (T.L. Hopper the wrestling plumber comes to mind) it also deals with the whole "Crash TV" start with the use of profanity and sex etc although it's the last chapter and not as informative as some of the other chapters.

It's informative and hilarious - and I've used it as a reference more than once.

As for Randy Orton - my main point isn't that I disliked the way you wrote it, I'm just speaking from the feedback I've personally gotten when involved in the "Good Article" process and stuff like that. And frankly I'm not very impressed with a lot of the wrestling articles and not totally surprised that most see them as a joke - I just try in my own way to improve articles one by one. MPJ-DK 19:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * As for the 80s book - I don't have a scanner and I'm not sure that's even legal as the WWE still owns the copyright to those pictures. MPJ-DK 19:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

If you're interested in reading more about the WrestleCrap book I found a limited preview on google books that has actual pages from it. Check it out if you want to know more http://books.google.com/books?id=50EU6leHbLoC&pg=PA2&ots=BIqo4Qw9ai&dq=wrestlecrap&sig=VtUGEYb9O-TGY5rvlP8gTnjn87I#PPA148,M1

Suggestion
How 'bout adding in the 2007 section a title of "The Legend Killer" or something like that. Because of the legends he's faced this year. Just a suggestion... --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I thought it might be a good suggestion (since you added some handy titles to the article); but I'll check to see if might work or not. Thanks for letting me know. --   ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Controversy Creates Cash
I'll have a look around the 1998 section and come back to you with suitable refefrences. Davnel03 08:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, it doesn't say anything specific about the Austin/McMahon fight, but it gives you pretty interesting information that could help with the article:

UNDERNEATH IS COPIED FROM THE BOOK - HOPE IT HELPS YOU! :)

Stone Cold & Shooting the Bird - pg 273 Looking back, the storyline itself was relatively simple by extremely effective. WWE developed a feud between Stone Cold Steve Austin and Vince McMahon. Vince wanted to bring Tyson in as a world-class athlete to shake things up. Austin took exception. All the buzz around Tyson upped the excitement level exponentially. Even to this day, as I go back and look at it, they set the angle up beautifully. They wove in enough reality to get the audience to that important point where they would suspend disbelief. To this day, when I see it, it feels real.

This wasn't a storyline that appealed to a twelve-year-old kid. This was aimed at young males in the workforce, people who'd be upset at being passed over for a promotion, people who'd resent their boss, who had something to prove. It appealed to fans who wished they could spit in their boss's eye.

One of the keys to the angle's success was Vince McMahon's decision to put himself out there as the owner of the company, something he hadn't been willing to do until now. And they couldn't have picked a better guy than Mike Tyson to give their show an edge. Tyson had edge, he was dangerous - times ten.

The Pay-Per-View helped Steve Austin launch his bad-ass, rattlesnake character to the moon. Everybody wanted to see a wrestler stand up to Tyson and put him in his place, and there was nobody better to pull that off than Steve Austin.

Once I saw the tape, I knew we were in deep shit.

That's it for that part of the chapter, Bischoff then goes onto talk about the post WrestleMania XIV Raw ratings bump. If you really want me to write up that section on here, then I will. Nethertheless, I hope the above helps you. Davnel03 17:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Did you manage to use that paragraph anywhere? If you need anything else, just ask. Davnel03 16:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: "zerorules"
Well, I don't exactly "rule", just thought it was a cool name (since I'm a skater). I try my best to help out. Just want to do a good job. And I may take your offer on that sentence or two. P.S. Why do you think I go by "ThinkBlue"? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject:Terrorism
Greetings,

I was hoping I could get some input from you, about the proposed mergerof WikiProject Terrorism and counter-terrorism with Wikiproject:Terrorism. It seems there's a lot of overlap between the two projects, and if we spent a few days merging the lists of articles, sharing ideas and collaborating on improving the same articles which both projects are focused on improving...we could really make some headway. Whether you're in favour, or against, the idea of a merger - I'd appreciate some feedback regardless. Much thanks. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 21:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Reversing my History of professional wrestling edits
My edits were meant to clean things up and appeal more to the manual of style. So, I don't know what you're getting at by saying that what I did made things look "dumbed down!" TMC1982 12:44 a.m., 8 September 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by TMC1982 (talk • contribs) 07:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey?!
Check this out... Really, am I? I can't be? **Sigh...** Davnel03 07:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW, thanks for including my ref in the History of professional wrestling page. Oh, also, I don't own that "Are We There Yet" book. According to the Library page, Naha does, so you're going to have to ask her about the information you need. Thanks, Davnel03 08:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, it was really added by someone else, well a vandal. The edit(s) were reverted about a minute later, and was blocked for 24 hours. Anway if you need to know any more little references to put in the history of professional wrestling article, just give me a shout and I'll try and get it. :) Davnel03 16:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah. You get 4 warnings (depending on the severity of the 1st vandalism), then you get blocked if you continue to vandalise. In this case, the user/IP was blocked for 24 hours (see here). Davnel03 17:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

List of professional wrestlers who died young
Thanks for the comment, but the list has to be cut off somewhere. Otherwise, it would have to be a list of every professional wrestler who's ever lived, since they all die at some point. So, to avoid that, there has to be an "arbitary" cut-off point, and that's what gets people ruffled.

If you want to create the list yourself in the mainspace, however you want, feel free. You can copy and paste what I have in my user-space and add whatever you want to it. I wouldn't be offended. Skudrafan1 18:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Slaphappy: Pride, Prejudice, and Professional Wrestling
I've read the article - it looks pretty good! I suggest you try and find somme reviews of the book and possibly add a review section to the article. Also, sources are needed desperately, so hopefully some reviews could add to the references. Good so far! Davnel03 09:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Are we there yet?
Hey Screw, jsut letting you know I typed up the information you wanted re: Randy Orton, and it is on my talk page. Hope this helps :) --Naha|(talk) 17:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The paragraph was interesting, but all it confirms is that the two were good friends.-- Sc r ew ba ll 23 talk 22:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XVIII - November 2007
The November 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 15:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/In Your House 1
Scorpion, some of your comment at the FAC came across to me as very uncivil. There was no need for that rant. Sorry, but I've put a huge amount of effort into that article, and don't deserve to get comments like that.  Dav  nel  03   16:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This comment means nothing to me: the rest is probably just as horrendous. How do you know if you haven't read it. If you don't put specific examples of where it is "horrendous" I cannot improve the article.  Dav  nel  03   17:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've addressed your coments about the lead. Would you possibly consider Supporting the article if you have any other comments to make. Thanks.  Dav  nel  03   17:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks.  Dav  nel  03   16:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for them comments! I have commented back. You will probably want to leave more comments and problems that probably have arisen from the changes. Do you mind if we work through the whole of the article, because I can see that the article is being improved step-by-step. If so, is there any chance you could leave comments on the 2nd feud, which is the Bret/Hakushi feud. I might be wrong, but am I right in saying that the "Event" section probably doesn't pose many problems, just the "Background" section? Thanks again!! :)  Dav  nel  03   18:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Any chance you could have a look at my comments? Thanks,  Dav  nel  03   22:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter
You are receiving this because because you are listed as a member of the Professional Wrestling WikiProject. If you would rather receive a notification of the newsletter sent to you, please add your name to this list. If you no longer wish to receive any notice of the newsletter, please add your name to this list. Delivered: 00:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC) by MiszaBot (talk)

WikiProject Novels - 1st Coordinators Election
An election has been proposed and has been set up for this project. Description of the roles etc., can be found at WikiProject Novels/Coordinators. If you wish to stand, enter your candidacy before the end of March and ask your questions of anyone already standing at WikiProject Novels/Coordinators/May 2008. Voting will start on the 1st April and close at the end of April. The intention is for the appointments to last from May - November 2008. For other details check out the pages or ask. KevinalewisBot (talk) 13:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:PW Newsletter
Hello! I see that you have a newsletter interview scheduled for a future edition of the newsletter. Due to the fact that we have started the Editor of the week, we will stop the interviews. The EOTW will be interviewed instead. To be fair, you have one week to answer the questions in your interview, as all of the interviews will go out in next week's newsletter. Cheers! iMat thew   20  08  16:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Terrorism Newsletter
Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 05:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Christopher X. Brodeur
Please do not make statements attacking people or groups of people. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

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. ospalh (talk) 09:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Linda McMahon
Sure. Basically under the image use policy, we can only have images of living people that aren't copyrighted. The image you uploaded was one made by WWE themselves so we can't allow it as they hold the copyright. For getting free use WWE photos that we can use on articles, there are generally three reliable sources: Sadly I can't seem to find any from these sites myself and all the other photos on the article have been taken down for copyright reasons (someone was telling fibs about the podium photo, it was taken off a YouTube video), so sometimes it's very hard to even obtain a free use photo. I hope this helps. --  Θaks  ter   23:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * US military websites, due to WWE's work with the troops. You can use this google search page as a guide.
 * Flickr photos are also useful as long they have a compatible license attached (here are the list of compatible licenses). This Flickr search page should help you for that.
 * Also if you have personally taken any photos of her in real life, you can basically submit the photo here as you are the author and you have the right to do anything with it.
 * No problem. I am a guy who first watched near the end of the Attitude era and quite a lot have changed since then and I suppose it's kinda mixed right now as clearly I'm not that much of a disillusioned fan to have stopped watching, yet I realised it's not the same as before. I actually don't mind the switch to TV-PG, but I do think that they have pushed the "kid-friendly" elements a little too far beyond the suspense of disbelief in areas (the recent "Little People's Court" being an example). --  Θaks  ter   15:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

RE:Linda
Thanks. I have quite a few projects that I am currently working on, but I'll try and give it a look pretty soon. Nikki ♥  311   18:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Screwball23, Thanks for your kind words. I looked at the bio and see a lot of references missing in the wrestling section and the political section is really a mess, although it seems accurate as far as it goes. I'll take a crack at the political section and suggest where some of the references are missing in the wrestling section. I'm a bit busy this week but I should have some time next week. Angloguy (talk) 14:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

FA help
Hi there,

I can certainly help you out, though I must warn you that I haven't written a Featured Article in two years and therefore the criteria might have changed that I used to write to. I've got my exams on at the moment, but if you want to send me a message on the 25th about how far you got and whether you think you're meeting the criteria, I'll come take a look for you and see what we can do. Sound fair? Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 21:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Elections and Referendums update
After considerable planning, election has been created. Please take a look at it and leave feedback on the WikiProject talk page. @harej 02:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:WWEclosingbell.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:WWEclosingbell.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 12:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Adoption
Greetings , I see you're up for adoption, and I'm in the market. If ever you need advice or answers, just ask me -- any question, any time. I'd like to help however I can. Happy editing - Draeco (talk) 21:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd be careful with negative and/or unsubstantiated information per WP:BLP. WP has become very strict about that. Otherwise, include everything verifiable that you can integrate well. If it becomes too lengthy, break out sub-articles like "Linda McMahon in the 2010 Senate Race." Such depth is a credit to WP and to your efforts. Deletionists love to axe obscure articles, but rarely will large blocks of well-written, well-cited information be deleted within an article. - Draeco (talk) 05:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As for the particular image you mentioned, it is already deleted with no link to the deletion discussion, so I don't know enough to talk about the specifics. If it was in fact a non-free image from Flickr as Fut.Perf discusses below, then he's right. - Draeco (talk) 04:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Smackdownyourvote.JPG
Thanks for uploading File:Smackdownyourvote.JPG. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 08:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:WWEclosingbell.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:WWEclosingbell.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 17:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:WWEClosing_Bell2.jpeg
Thanks for uploading File:WWEClosing_Bell2.jpeg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 17:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Todayshow.JPG
Thanks for uploading File:Todayshow.JPG. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 17:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Verrazano.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Verrazano.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 17:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Your images
Hello Screwball23, I saw your posting somewhere complaining about the tagging of your image uploads by User:Melesse. I've looked into it a bit and I'm afraid I find Melesse is generally right. The non-free content criteria are quite strict. In particular, when you are dealing with a public person such as a US politician, we always assume we could get enough free photographs of them; it is then not possible to upload non-free photos of them simply to illustrate they have appeared on such-and-such a type of occasion. Also, with regard to File:Verrazano.jpg, you seem to have been under the misunderstanding that Flickr photographs are automatically free. In fact, most of them are not. You always need to check the licensing details on each Flickr page, which you'll find somewhere in the bottom right corner. Many Flickr photographs are "all rights reserved"; many others are "some rights reserved" with a "non-commercial use only" clause ("cc-by-nc"). Those are all off-limits for us. We can only use those that say "cc-by" or "cc-by-sa". Flickr images are virtually never "public domain", which is yet a different concept. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Linda-hi-rez-7-150x150.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Linda-hi-rez-7-150x150.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 10:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:McMahonmailers.JPG
 Thanks for uploading File:McMahonmailers.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.


 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.


 * If you recieved this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.


 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 13:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Shawn Hernandez
He did nothing notable on the Texas indy scene. It's ridiculous to break up the TNA section only to get the text "Upon his departure from TNA, Hernandez worked on the Texas independent circuit throughout 2005" in there, when it can be perfectly well placed in the start of the LAX part. The first AAA section should come after LAX if you're going put it in chronological order, so that's the only thing you have on his time between Elite Guard and LAX.TheFBH (talk) 09:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

History of WWE
I don't think you fully understand what is wrong with the edits. I also don't think you understand what's in the refs. First of all my main concern is with the term "PG Era" - a (as you put it) fan coined term - No where in the refs is the term used. You and I both know and cannot deny that the term is only used within the IWC. The use of the term as an official term for this "supposed" era - "supposed" is in quotation marks as I'll explain right now - is Original Research. Why? Because WWE hasn't acknowledge this as a "supposed" era. What it is to them as your reference cited is a simple change in programming. Finally TNA is irrelevant to the subject of the history of WWE and therefore deserves no mention in the article. You are not going to find heavily weighed notes of other subjects in a an article of a single subject unless it is relevant to both subjects. You can argue that the subject of WWE may be relevant to TNA but it certainly isn't the other way around. Even then, the TNA articles make no mention of WWE. If you still strongly disagree, why don't you take this up at WT:PW and let the project decide?-- Unquestionable Truth -- 01:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh the jealousy argument... Listen kid you're way in over your head. Fine you wanna go? lets go. -- Unquestionable Truth -- 21:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And I will back Bullet up. Consensus has been established by the project already as Bullet has indicated. If he doesn't revert it I will.  !! Just a Punk !!  04:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Voluntary Human Extinction Movement
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Incivility
Please limit your talk page comments to discussion of the content not the contributor. Derogatory comments like these are not appropriate: This has already been mentioned by another editor on the same page and could be construed by an Administrator as personal attacks. I hope that you can correct this and that we can work together in a harmonious way. Thanks.-- — Kbob • Talk  • 17:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Kbob has no idea what he's talking about
 * thank god this weirdo finally left the page

Re: Linda McMahon article
Hello. You left a message on my talk page a few days ago asking me to check out the Linda McMahon article. I've done so this afternoon, and I've got to say that the article seems quite thorough. It has tripled in bytes over the past six months, in large part due to your contributions. For the most part, I think the article is good, though perhaps some sections could be split into their own articles, especially the one on her run for Senate. Such an article would probably be justified already due to her prominent campaign, and ever more so if she should win the GOP nomination.

I have also noticed on the article's talk page that a photo of Linda on the campaign trail might be helpful. Too bad I didn't have my camera with me, because I briefly met her at a dinner in late March. If I happen to run into her again, however, I'll try to take such a photo. I can't make any promises, though. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 20:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

NYC Wikipedia Meetup Saturday, May 22
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikimedia Chapters Meeting 2010, plan for the next stages of projects like Wiki-Conference NYC and Wikipedia Cultural Embassy, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the March meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

re
sigh... I explained it to you before. Then I told you to take it to PW if you still disagreed. PW decided it was barely notable. Then you continued to fight over. Finally, they told you to let it go. Once again, let it go. Consensus stands. -- Unquestionable Truth -- 17:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * ROFLMAO @ how delusional you're acting...-- Unquestionable Truth -- 02:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Once again, I remind you that WT:PW deemed the subject barely notable. If you still disagree, I invite you to restate your case at WT:PW. However please note that your continued defiance of the consensus is disruptive, which is more than enough to warrant a block. -- Unquestionable Truth -- 21:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

May 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please know that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors on World Wrestling Entertainment. If you create or edit an article, know that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Curtis23's Usalions 20:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

WWE Change in Programming
I started a new discussion about it at WT:PW so you can see that consensus is reached that the Change in Programming doesn't warrant it's own section.--Curtis23's Usalions 22:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing
Would you thank someone for a oppose comment?--Curtis23's Usalions 23:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

WWE edit warring
Although you are not in violation of 3RR, your edits to this article definitely constitute edit warring. Discussion to reach consensus needs to take place; if problems continue after that, there are obviously other steps to take. Constant reverting violates Wikipedia policy, though. Keep it real, GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't care who's right and who's wrong. If you checked, you would see that I left the same message on his page. You need to stop with the edit war, or this will be referred to the Administrator's Noticeboard. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Screwball, until you provide sources to prove notability you are outside WP rules with the edit you are pushing. At present what you are doing is nothing more than WP:OR. Prove what you say is true. Just saying "everyone knows it" is worth absolutely zero on Wikipedia. ' !! Just a Punk !! ' 04:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You provided no links that were reliable. Therefore it is not notable under Wikipedia rules. Individual opinion of whether or not it's notable is irrelevant. You have to prove that it's notable with reliable third party independent sources. You have failed to do that, and it's why the Project consensus is that it's not notable. You are trying to place your own opinion ahead of the rules of this encyclopedia. I also note that you are having issues with another article for similar reasons re sources AKA referencing. Get the hint - you are doing it wrong.  !! Just a Punk !!  21:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I listened. You didn't. Indeed - the conversation is over and it's not my fault but yours.  !! Just a Punk !!  02:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Blumenthal revert
Know what you are talking about before reverting - or ask and I'll help you.Victor9876 (talk) 18:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Stop destroying the Warrior article
You are currently abusing the Wikipedia policy on citations. Cease and desist or you will receive administrator action.-- Sc r ew ba ll 23 talk 17:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Wrong answer. I am an administrator and I am responding to complaints from the subject by removing poorly cited or uncited contentious material. Guy (Help!) 18:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have the ticket for the complaint source? Silver  seren C 18:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, whatever. Hey, Screwball, here. Get to referencing! I'll be helping out. Silver seren C 18:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd advise you to stop pushing him, he will block you. He really is in a good mood today, considering he hasn't already. He gave you the ticket complaint number, which means that there was a complaint, so there's nothing you can do. Just focus on referencing what is there and we'll see about the rest later. It'll always be in the history of the page, regardless, if you need it again. Silver  seren C 19:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

CT Senate race
I do work extremely hard on election articles. Thanks. Unless if an election article is very prominent and has a lot of information, only one or two lead paragraphs are necessary. In the case of this election, the primaries haven't even started yet. So the best thing to do is to have one paragraph, simply saying how the incumbent, Chris Dodd, isn't running and how McMahon/Blumenthal are the front runners.

On another note, I'm really confused...Do you understand how the nominating system works in Connecticut?--Jerzeykydd (talk) 12:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey again. I just wanted to let you know that I'm tying to make the election article as less confusing as possible, which is why I seperated convention and primary candidates.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm getting a little frustrated with you. I don't care so much about whether or not Linda McMahon is the nominee. What I'm getting angry about is the candidate sections. How do people suppose to know who was on the convention ballot and who was on the primary ballot? You keep reverting what I do... and people including myself get confused about what's going on. For example, some candidates didn't get into the primary because they didn't perform well enough in the convention. I don't understand your way of thinking. Why in the world do you oppose seperating the candidates section between primary and convention?--Jerzeykydd (talk) 18:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand that Blumenthal is the nominee.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 19:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

United States Senate election in Connecticut, 2010
Please don't add all those people to the infobox. The infobox is only for the official party nominee. As of now, there is no official Republican nominee. --Muboshgu (talk) 03:10, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we've been talking about somewhat different things, which has made for some confusion. The article text can mention that McMahon has the party support.  But that infobox at the top of the page is only for official party nominees.  The party, simply, does not yet have a nominee as of yet.  Maybe the best way, if you feel it's unfair to show Blumenthal in that box and no Republican, is just to take it down until the Republican primary happens. --Muboshgu (talk) 07:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not a Schiff supporter. Quite the contrary, I've noticed that you are clearly a McMahon supporter adding bias into the article.  The "rule" that you're referring to about only nominees going in the infobox should be clear in that the line you input on is labeled "nominee", which McMahon is not, unless she indeed wins the primary, which won't happen until August. --Muboshgu (talk) 01:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Catch this bit of news yet? That is why Linda McMahon should not have been considered a "presumptive" nominee. As Yogi Berra once said, "it ain't over till it's over". --Muboshgu (talk) 18:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

24h 3RR block
I have blocked you for 24 hours for violation of the 3RR rule, reverting over three times in one 24 hour period. Attempts were made to discuss the issue with you, none of the other editors have breached 3RR - yet multiple users have reverted you and you continued to war with them. S.G.(GH) ping! 18:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

WWE Re:
I have and I have made comments on the talk page along with others.-- Steam   Iron  04:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Screwball, I strongly recommend that you drop this. You claim that you have been calmly discussing matters in effect, but your conduct is bordering of fixated and you are upsetting other editors with this. You have been asked to provide more sources given that you state that there are many articles and reports in your support and you have failed to do so. The sources you have provided are not enough. I can see you being banned again if you persist on your current line as it seems that you are refusing to listen. Your claim that there's a gang after you is only happening because you are the threat to the article and not them. Not because you are right or wrong, but because you insist that you are right and you won't listen when it is proven you are wrong.
 * Please. Just drop it. Or answer Justa Punk's challenge and provide the two dozen sources. If there are as many articles and reports as you claim this should be a simple task. If you don't, you will never get your way and unless you want to suffer a long term ban you must drop this. Just some friendly advice. RICK ME DOODLE   YOU DOODLE  07:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Stop splitting the posts. There is one topic under discussion; does the tempering of the recent (in the last 18 months) WWE product constitute a new "era" (that is a distinct from the WWE Universe "era"). As all you are doing is arguing in circles and claiming that other editors are not listening whilst not listening yourself or providing any references to back up your assertion you may find the patience of other editors tested to the point of an ANI report and a topic ban. If you want to make progress offer references to back up your edit, otherwise move on. And don't call me names in an edit summary, your attempt to split the section have been reverted twice. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

3RR, again.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on World Wrestling Entertainment. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. For the record 4:24 21 June 2010 version reverted to, 5:36 21 June 2020 1RR, 17:55 21 June 2010 2RR. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * And here is the 3RR report. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing (part deux)
Keep it up... I mean you've done it before... btw I don't know where or how you see this as a personal issue. Believe me when I personally say it's NOT a personal issue. It's a WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:RS issue. Also why you think Justa Punk has gone nuts is beyond me. Perhaps its your way of fluffing up the issue for the users you keep canvassing... Hmm. -- Unquestionable Truth -- 05:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * A person who has to bolden his complaints, lose his temper, and give lectures on "how wikipedia works" while giving arbitrary commands on 24 refs is not completely healthy. His refusal to join mediation with an impartial moderator is another indication that something is up. -- Sc r ew ba ll 23 talk 21:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * A person who has to ask around for multiple admins and different forums is actually the leading indication that someone's panicking. Additionally, RFM is impossible for disputes with multiple parties involved - another indication the someone still doesn't know how wikipedia works... Happy canvassing! -- Unquestionable Truth -- 22:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Get real. You didn't have the balls to join the mediation and now you want to criticize me for getting third party opinions? I think you know how wikipedia works so well that you are afraid of losing. -- Sc r ew ba ll 23 talk 17:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Watch yourself with the Personal Attacks (yet another indication that someone's panicking) or you might find yourself on the wrong end of another block. Finally, as I am sure you were told by another admin, RFM's are not for disputes involving multiple parties... and yet you still don't get it. -- Unquestionable Truth -- 18:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Stop forum shopping; 3O, editor assistance, RFC and mediation is three steps too far. No matter how many people you canvas it will not change the basic fact that the text you want to insert is not up to standards. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What standards? You keep mentioning the links to Bleacher report, but the others are perfectly legitimate. I know you are full of it, and your refusal to join mediation has made it clear that you don't want to solve this productively. I spoke with Wasted Time because he has undoubtedly dealt with some creepy and obsessive editors before.-- Sc r ew ba ll 23 talk 21:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

June 2010
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule&#32;at World Wrestling Entertainment. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. B (talk) 17:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you very much for the barnstar and the kind words. I hope that they are not premature and that we can all find a way forward together. &mdash; e. ripley\talk 19:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected
The Request for mediation concerning World Wrestling Entertainment, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible to allow this dispute to proceed to mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Queries on the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list. For the Mediation Committee, AGK  17:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC) (This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.)

Reply
You are editing against consensus. Podgy Stuffn (talk) 04:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about ? The consensus was never established. The discussion has continued, and I am finally talking with an individual who read my references and is willing to talk about the material. The discussion before was just a bunch of emotionally unstable blabber that completely avoided the facts. Please read the talk page and join the discussion on the newest thread.-- Sc r ew ba ll 23 talk 04:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, STOP canvassing. Begging people to read, and re-read, and re-re-read your argument isn't going to help your case, neither is accusing others of biases simply because they don't agree with you. Stop edit warring. -- Unquestionable Truth -- 07:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

This is going to ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ' !! Just a Punk !! ' 12:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

July 2010
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule&#32;at World Wrestling Entertainment. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   16:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:LindaMcMahon_web_ad.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:LindaMcMahon_web_ad.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 20:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Wiki-Conference NYC (2nd annual)
Our 2nd annual Wiki-Conference NYC has been confirmed for the weekend of August 28-29 at New York University.

There's still plenty of time to join a panel, or to propose a lightning talk or an open space session. Register for the Wiki-Conference here. And sign up here for on-wiki notification. All are invited! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:LindaMcMahon web ad.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:LindaMcMahon web ad.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 17:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/The Art of Charm
FYI, generally the nominator does not cast an additional bolded !vote at AFD discussions. If you feel that there is more you need to say, you may preface it with a bold "comment", or just simply say it. Regards,  Jujutacular  talk 02:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Codex Vaticanus/GA2
Feel free to take over rest of review/promotion/etc as GA Reviewer. No worries, and thank you! Yours, -- Cirt (talk) 20:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Talk:Codex Vaticanus/GA2

Reply re Talk:Codex Vaticanus/GA2
I fixed your previous edits. You still need to do the rest of the "pass" steps, laid out at WP:GAN. -- Cirt (talk) 01:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Talk:Codex Vaticanus/GA2

Number of leaves
Yes you are right it is not very important information for the lead. Number of leaves is mentioned in section "Description". Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 07:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Linda McMahon
I don't think the Linda McMahon article is ready to be a good article nomination. I can give it a pre-review if you'd like. Nikki ♥  311   19:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't feel sorry
On a recent edit, you expressed regret at deleting someone's addition to the external links section, feeling it was likely his first edit. There's no need to feel sorry - that IP has been doing a lot of edits, and what a coincidence - they all seem to be adding external links to commentaries by the same author! --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

GA Review
At Good article nominations you are listed as the reviewer for Codex Vaticanus. The review has been open for several weeks and it appears that work has stalled. Can this review be completed soon? Or is more time required? --maclean (talk) 20:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You are doing this review right? It's had three reviewers stall out on it already, please finish it... Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 02:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If you have abandoned tthis review, please have the courtesy to say so on the review page. Otherwise please finish it now. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Linda McMahon
Hi Screwball, could you better help me understand your position on the McMahon article? I don't see the relevance of a pre-1993 (when she assumed control) trial of a company doctor, especially when the article is about Ms. McMahon herself, not the company. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, however. What do you feel this adds to our understanding of Linda herself? Thanks. Fell Gleaming talk 15:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I must note you've made 3 reversions to this article within 24 hours.  In case you're not familiar with the the Wikipedia three-revert rule, you may want to read about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by  FellGleaming  (talk • contribs)  23:47 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Linda McMahon
Hi. Just noticed the battle going on over this article. It's not my fight, but I thought I'd just mention to you it's my cursory impression that Fell Gleaming is beyond 3RR at this point on the article. You might want to be careful yourself, btw; I think - again from a very cursory look - that you might be at 2RR, at least. Best, –  OhioStandard  (talk) 22:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

a tip
My experience engaging in and watching editorial disagreements has lead me to believe that accusing the opposition of improper motives only hurts your case, even when - no, especially when - the accusation is accurate. You're not telling the opponent anything they didn't know, and you're not looking to the undecided like you're working from a calm and reasoned position. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, that makes a lot of sense. You're telling me my accusations are accurate, but you still want to revert me because I don't know how to play an editorial disagreement? This is a very black day for wikipedia. :-(-- Sc r ew ba ll 23 talk 03:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I'm reverting your mass-reversion because in doing it, you reverted even things that you had agreed to, such as reintroducing much of the ringboy material. I didn't have time at the moment to sort out all of what should be restored and what should not. And no, I was not telling you that your accusations were accurate. I was saying that believing you're telling the truth - even telling the truth - does not make it an effective strategy. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Nat's right in his first assertion here, SB. And he wasn't attacking you, either. On the contrary, he was offering valuable and helpful advice. Telling your interlocuter he's biased isn't any kind of effective strategy at all, because no one really thinks of themselves as biased and they just take offense. It antagonizes the person, and regardless of whether the accusation has any truth to it or not, it doesn't generally impress onlookers, either, who always decide such things for themselves. I know you're very invested in this article, but he's right in saying that calm, reasoned disputation is much more likely to have the effect you want, both on the person you're disputing with, and with respect to observers, as well. None of this is meant as any reflection on reverts or on content, btw. I'm not familiar enough with the history here, or with who agreed to what, to offer any opinon on that. –  OhioStandard  (talk) 12:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

3RR
Please read WP:3RR as you have now made 3 straight reverts on Linda McMahon and 8 in only four days. Consider this a warning about edit war behaviour on that article. Collect (talk) 10:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Linda
Hi your being reverted by multiple editors, perhaps more discussion is the answer. Off2riorob (talk) 15:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI enforcement request notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

3RR warning
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Linda McMahon. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Mcmahon ring.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Mcmahon ring.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Linda McMahon 3RR note
FYI, you are edit warring on the Linda McMahon article, please stop. Off2riorob (talk) 15:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

September 2010
Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Wikipedia page. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ''In this edit, you restored material allegedly supported by a citation where the citation did not support that assertion. BLP material must be explicitly mentioned in the citation, and this is clearly not. Failure to exercise more caution in the future will result in your being blocked.'' Jclemens (talk) 18:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

New compromise
I have a solution to the polling problems!!! Refer to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums to the polling, new compromise section.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 23:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

3RR Violation
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Linda McMahon. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

Arbitration/Requests/Case
Let me give you some advice, both as an Arbitration Committee clerk and an editor who has been around for a couple years. There is zero chance that ArbCom will accept this dispute as currently filed. There is no evidence of prior dispute resolution besides communication processes. Generally for this type of thing to progress to ArbCom, at the very least, Deletion Review and a User Request for Comment should have been tried. I suggest that you withdraw your request, speak with a more experienced Wikipedian that you trust to give you good advice, and then pursue Dispute Resolution as suggested on that page. NW ( Talk ) 01:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi there. I have removed your case request per the direction of the arbitrators. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. NW ( Talk ) 13:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: Fell Gleaming
Hi, could you give me an overview and an update in regards to the dispute with FellGleaming? I'm trying to track the problem down and I'm looking for your opinion on the subject. Viriditas (talk) 21:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

HELP!!!
please help me man im new to wikipedia and some guy is bullying me its about the goldberg article please refer to the talk page i know you are a goldberg lover and i know you hate to see him get dissed(especially not by some ip editor)

now some guy called Qwyrxian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Qwyrxian keeps insisting im a racist just cause i called someone a malaysian im telling him im not but they keep saying its indisputable and...

as for the ip editor heres a link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:175.144.73.197

he called a xenophobic racist but i only called him ignorant coz he is not looking in the link you put on the talk page to PROVE that goldbergs streak is not KAYFABE i know its not fake coz wcw saturday and some hidden matches like goldberg vs sandman and matches like dark matches were on the down low matches but they still count right?

look up on youtube for the sandman match it was brutal and there was some blood but it was like superman vs singapore can wielding man you gotta see it

i hope you will help and also please request semi protection on the article and please teach me how to do "wikipedia stuff" please coach me TraviaNightmare (talk) 13:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Reply
Hi, Screwball. This is in reply to your post to my talk page. Normally I like to keep talk-page discussions on the page where they begin, but I infer from your talk page that you probably don't follow that convention and that you might not have "watchlisted" my talk page, to make sure of seeing my reply. Thus my reply here. If you choose to respond you can do so right here, on your own talk page; I'll keep this page watchlisted for a while to make sure I don't miss any reply.

I think you need to be very careful to avoid any appearance of canvassing. Your post to my talk page probably doesn't strictly qualify as such, since I've demonstrated some interest in the article, but it's very close. I really don't have a lot to say beyond this; the behavior on all sides has been pretty unfortunate, imo.

There was a non-WP matter that I thought you might appreciate having some info about, however, regarding one of your interests. I wanted to e-mail you about that, but I notice you don't have that function enabled. So if you're interested, feel free to e-mail a quick "ping" to my all-lowercase, all-one-word Wikipedia user name at gmail dawt youknowwhat. ( I'm trying to keep the the evil spam bots away, of course. ) If you have only a personally-identifying e-mail account, feel free to create a generic "throwaway" account at gmail or yahoo, or wherever; it's probably wisest not to disclose one's name or other personally-identifying information to a stranger online, even in e-mail.

I have been and continue to be on something of a wikibreak just now, btw, so I might not get back to you very promptly if you post here, fyi. Btw, you know you're allowed to delete or archive your talk page messages, just as you prefer, right? There's an awful lot of old stuff here that makes navigating the page a bit more cumbersome than necessary. Best, –  OhioStandard  (talk) 00:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

FYI - ANI
Hi, your editing has been mentioned in a thread at ANI here, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 14:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for 2 weeks
I'm sorry, but your recent behavior, including both personal attacks and edit warring, is unacceptable. You have been blocked three times for edit warring and warned many, many times. Please use these two weeks to think about how to be more civil to others and how to achieve consensus through discussion with other users. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 17:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

hear me out
i'm new, but just wanted to say you can't go around doing bad stuff on wikipedia. it's bad. so remove it or lose it (yo account). behave now, cuz you gotta Tanks  —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Phone Man (talk • contribs) 21:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected
The Request for mediation concerning Linda McMahon, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible to allow this dispute to proceed to mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Queries on the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list. For the Mediation Committee, AGK  11:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC) (This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.)

Notice of ongoing discussion
Hi, Screwball. I've made it clear on other pages that I disapprove very strongly of the behavior that you were blocked for, so I won't comment further on that here. And although the ANI thread in which you were blocked has now rolled off to archives, I feel obligated to tell you that there is a related discussion ongoing on the talk page of the admin who blocked you, King of Hearts. Two admins and one user have asked me to provide diffs to support my opinion that you weren't the only one edit-warring over the McMahon articles. I've not taken the time and trouble to do so because I think it's very obvious from just the two articles' revision histories, and also (to speak frankly) because I'm very tired of dealing with the problem. But since you weren't able to respond at all at ANI before you were blocked, you can present any evidence you might like to present here. I'd be willing to inform King of Hearts if you post here, so he could evaluate whatever you might wish to say. – OhioStandard  (talk) 21:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia NYC Meetup Sat Oct 16
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wiki-Conference NYC 2010, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia Ambassador Program and Wikipedia Academy, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the May meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 16:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

courtesy note
FYI - BLPN thread - L McMahon - Off2riorob (talk) 23:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

McMahon
Your edit warring the templates, please move to proper discussion and take this as a warning, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 02:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You are not listening to me. Communication here is a two-way street. The template was never justified. I am working 1,000 times harder than everyone else here. I not only researched and then built the section, I put the refs in, and now I'm being challenged because people don't want to read the refs. Instead, I have people claiming that the material is uncited. How does someone handle that? The fact of the matter is, the tipoff memo is factually accurate. Read about Wikipedia's policy on POV - no one has ever raised their so called "disputes" or "objections" to the section, so obviously there is nothing to discuss.-- Sc r ew ba ll 23 talk 02:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Looking at it, you are over 3RR and under the circumstances that is very disappointing indeed, a thread was opened for discussion and still you revert. You are well enough experienced not to need warning about it. I am minded to report you immediately.Off2riorob (talk) 02:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What discussion? I don't see anything. You should be ashamed of accusing uncited statements when I am offering clear references for you to read. That is closed-minded behavior.-- Sc r ew ba ll 23 talk 02:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

November 2010
This is your only warning. If you add defamatory content to Wikipedia again, as you did at Linda McMahon, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ''You have been edit warring against multiple editors to include poorly sourced BLP material. Even if such material were properly sourced, it would violate WP:UNDUE. You have repeatedly reverted other editors without cause, when those editors were attempting to improve the NPOV of the article's wording. You are now (as if you weren't already) formally on notice that any future edit to this article which has the net effect--intended or not, revert or new material, today or some point in the future--of a BLP violation, broadly construed will result in your being blocked for such action. The sole defense against such future blocking will be demonstrated evidence that you have reached consensus for the edits on the article talk page.'' Jclemens (talk) 01:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This is absolute bullying. You are a disgrace of a wikipedian, and I should report your garbage to an administrator. I put on well-researched info and that reference was there for the longest time. All of a sudden, editors who have misinterpretted the NPOV policies to remove anything that is factual just because it might not look good are taking aim at this page and want to delete like its going out of style...and instead of logical arguments, all I am encountering is a gang of people who have the worst bad faith of anything I've seen. How is it suddenly an issue that the Counterfeit Hero reference is used? It was always there, and the facts were always there. There is nothing wrong with the reference.


 * As far as your accusations of UNDUE weight, I know and you know that you are full of baloney. Her memo to Patterson was significant not only during the trial, but during her campaign. To say that it should be abbreviated is a disservice to readers, who will not be able to form an objective opinion of her actions simply because you decided you should take it upon yourself to "summarize" what happened instead of letting the quote stay. I had this argument with Collect and his gang before, and they never won the argument. You can't either, and since you're desperate, you are going to try and abuse wikipedia's blocking policy to scare me away. -- Sc r ew ba ll 23 talk 01:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You're free to rant all you want, but the next time you place BLP-violating material (either directly, or by reverting someone else's removal) into the article, you will be blocked from editing. You don't appear to be understanding the entire point of the WP:BLP policy.  I'd encourage you to read through the noticeboard and see what other sorts of problems come up and how they're handled, to get a better perspective on the topic.  If you don't want to do that, I don't see how you can contribute positively to Wikipedia articles involving living people. One thing you don't appear to be getting is the spectrum of viewpoints represented in the variety of editors who have reverted you and/or told you that you are proceeding in a manner against consensus.  While it's certainly possible for everyone in this corner of Wikipedia to be ganging up on you, it's far more likely that you're simply not understanding consensus. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 21:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: Saturday, December 4
Our next Wikipedia NYC Meetup is this weekend on Saturday Dec 4 at Brooklyn Museum during their awesome First Saturdays program, starting at 5 PM.

A particular highlight for the wiki crowd will be 'Seductive Subversion: Women Pop Artists, 1958–1968', and the accompanying "WikiPop" project, with specially-created Wikipedia articles on the artists displayed on iPads in the gallery.

This will be a museum touring and partying meetup, so no excuses about being a shy newbie this time. Bring a friend too!

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Notice
Of discussion at WP:WQA Collect (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Screwball23, Thank you for the Barnstar. Iss246 (talk) 06:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I copy edited the Malati Dasi entry today as part of the drive to work on the backlog. Of course, I would welcome your taking a look at the entry. Iss246 (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Churchill Machine Tool Company
I'm grateful for what you are doing with the lead of the above article at the moment. Right from the get-go I've had trouble with phrasing the thing - never done one before and even at the GA review neither I nor the reviewer were wonderfully happy with my attempts. - Sitush (talk) 15:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Craven Brothers (Manchester) Ltd
Watching remarks elsewhere, and assuming good faith can I suggest you start and work up an article on Craven Brothers- a defunct company specialising in machine tools, so we can better appreciate your ideas this will show you the sort of mills and planers they made- yes big, very big. There would be some interesting analysis on why they went down in 19070 in spite of a rumoured full order book. --ClemRutter (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

You're invited to the New York Wiknic!


This message is being sent to inform you of a Wikipedia picnic that is being held in your area next Saturday, June 25. From 1 to 8 PM or any time in between, join your fellow volunteers for a get together at Norman's Landscape ( directions ) in Manhattan's Central Park.

Take along your friends (newbies permitted), your family and other free culture enthusiasts! You may also want to pack a blanket, some water or perhaps even a frisbee.

If you can, share what you're bringing at the discussion page.

Also, please remember that this is the picnic that anyone can edit so bring enough food to share!

To subscribe to future events, follow the mailing list or add your username to the invitation list. BrownBot (talk) 19:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Consensus
You have the concept of consensus all wrong - the dispute process is after something is reverted, discuss. In other words, if there is a dispute (as there clearly is), you need consensus to add it, not remove it.


 * Also, the vandal tag was an accident; my apologies for that. :)  Toa   Nidhiki  05  17:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What is your rationale for removing it? It is abusive to delete something without rationale, and then use the hazy excuse of "no consensus". And for you to claim that there is no consensus for an edit just seconds after I posted it is absolute nonsense. Consensus, by definition, requires more than one person.-- Sc r ew ba ll 23 talk 18:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Read up on dispute resolution, particularly this process - there is already consensus against that based on other rulings on the page. If you want to change that, cool, but do it the proper way rather than forcing it through.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  18:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If I have no rationale for your revert, what am I supposed to do? Come one, give me something to work with here. Is it something personal? Why are you so upset by my edits here?-- Sc r ew ba ll 23 talk 18:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I have no issue and have not been involved on that page - but there is consensus against edits like that on the page, and thus I reverted it. What is so difficult about going to the talk page and discussing it with other editors? The page is not subservient to your will alone.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  18:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "Edits like that?" Like what? For a person who "has not been involved on that page", you seem to know a lot about its consensus. Can you even tell me what consensus you are talking about? Seriously, if you have no issue, what am I discussing here? I'm supposed to discuss an edit issue with a person who doesn't have an issue?-- Sc r ew ba ll 23 talk 18:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Screwball, I am not involved - but that does not mean I have not been observing. The fact is, labels along the lines of 'absolute ruler' and 'absolute dictator' have been rejected many, many times by consensus - this also applies to future edits along the same lines. If you want to change consensus, start an RfC - otherwise, you need to follow the consensus that has been reached by your fellow editors.
 * You also appear to be taking this personally, when this is no personal issue - I reverted your edit that violates page consensus, and you seem quite angry and think I am out to get you or something.

I will reiterate - why can you not at least try and reach consensus with your fellow editors? You do not own the page. If you are not capable of doing something that simple, I honestly don't see why you are on a collaborative project.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  18:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not true and you know it. My edits regarding his Cult of personality were removed because of your claims of "consensus". Now, you are generalizing both that and his status as an absolute dictator, and trying to claim I'm forcing something against consensus without making it clear what you are talking about. I want you to see where I'm coming from - you are a person who claims to know consensus, and yet you have no issue, no reason to back up your reverts. I will tell you again to read don't revert due to "no consensus" Check the talk page on Gaddafi, because I am discussing the facts there.-- Sc r ew ba ll 23  talk 18:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Screw, please assume good faith and stop the personal attacks. Accusing me of lying is not assuming good faith. Once again, what is the issue with holding an RfC on something that is clearly disputed? You still haven't answered that question.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  18:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What is your dispute? Why can't you answer that question? You keep trying to point to some established consensus, saying that there's been a PRIOR on this, and I have to tell you, I don't see any reason why a consistently-verified edit is being challenged by you.


 * I don't see any reason why you can't take this to an RfC and discuss it other than that you don't want to collaborate with others.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  19:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Assume good faith and stop the personal attacks-- Sc r ew ba ll 23 talk 20:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Gaddafi
HI

Just to let you know I have completed a copyedit on the Muammar Gaddafi article. Chaosdruid (talk) 01:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
—  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 07:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've left a new reply for you on my talk page. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 18:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Muammar_Gaddafi
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively. In particular, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  07:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Removal of talk page post
Hi

I realise that you may have been a little upset, but removing my post is definitely against policy Talk_page_guidelines. The post did not attack you in anyway shape or form, and its removal was definitely not covered by WP:NPA.

Changing the article against already agreed consensus needs to find new consensus before changes to it are made. As you seem to think that you can simply remove talk page comments that you disagree with, and quote a policy that does not apply, I think it best that you reconsider and revert your removal. Chaosdruid (talk) 16:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC) PS I use the WikiChecker article count to see who are the main contributors to articles, perhaps it is innacurate?, nonetheless that is all we have to go on: Phase4 (36) Avanu (33) Jbower47 (31) AFarmer64 (22) Screwball23 (21) Chaosdruid (talk) 17:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Gaddafi (reply)
Hi; I apologize for taking so long to reply to your comment on my talk page, and also for having said or done anything that might have caused offense or seemed to undermine the value of your contribution. Just so you know, I'm working on a thorough response to your comment (I'm planning to place it on article talk, if you wouldn't mind, because I feel that our concerns are relevant to the article and to its editors in general). My editing has been really sporadic lately, however, and I don't know exactly when I'll have a chance to post my reply (although I'll aim for sooner rather than later). So, in fairness to you, I will not even consider "re-reverting" (i.e., I will not deliberately again revert) any of your prior edits to the article until, at the very soonest, I have produced the rationale that you requested. Let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Cosmic Latte (talk) 00:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Muammar Gadaffi
Please review the DYK rules before nominating articles. Your nomination of Template talk:Did you know/Muammar Gaddafi was rejected because the article does not meet DYK's criteria. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 17:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Muammar map
Hello, Screwball23! Thanks for writing! Technically, I didn't make the John Paul II map, but I made the blank world map that it and most other maps on Wikipedia (at least the SVG versions) are based on. I don't have much free time to work on it, never mind to do your request, but there are instructions both on the talk page of the file on Commons, and in the first few lines of the SVG code itself (open the file with a text reader like Notepad). Thanks also for the barnstar offer, but I basically set out to improve an existing map with my very limited SVG knowledge and donate the end result to Wikipedia to let other turn it into what it's become on the site. So my reward is seeing it used rather than praise (besides, I always maintain that the SVG wizards who created the original (like User:Brianski) that I just improved deserve far more praise and barnstars than I. --Canuckguy (talk) 23:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Re:Muammar Gaddafi
Hello there. I am sorry to say, but that was not me who made the Libya map. I have no idea why my name was on it, but whatever. Besides that, I would be willing to do a quick map for you, I see nothing wrong with that. --NuclearVacuum (talk) 16:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

CT 2012 Senate Race
Thank you for the back-up. While I do a lot of polling edits, I'm not all against how you feel. But I suppose that a debate for another day. =) With that said, this is a encyclopedia, and as long as polls are included, they should at least be from a reliable source!! Thank you again! America69 (talk) 00:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for File:Obamaarab_mccain2008.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Obamaarab_mccain2008.jpg. Unfortunately, I think that you have not provided a proper rationale for using this image under "fair use". Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page. Note that the image description page must include the exact name or a link to each article the image is used in and a separate rationale for each one. (If a link is used, automated processes may improperly add the related tag to the image.  Please change the fair use template to refer to the exact name, if you see this warning.)

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted after seven days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 02:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

August 2011
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively. In particular, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:48, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Thanks
Thanks for following up on the recent modifications to the Gaddafi article. It seems like several editors are getting fairly zealous with the recent news, and I tried to revert a little, but your work was much more thorough. -- Avanu (talk) 01:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

File:GaddafionTimemagazine.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:GaddafionTimemagazine.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sir Armbrust Talk to me  Contribs  16:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Gaddafimoney.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Gaddafimoney.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sir Armbrust Talk to me  <sub style="color:#008000;">Contribs  16:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

August 2011
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2012. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively. In particular, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Fat&amp;Happy (talk) 20:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Linda McMahon wrestler contracts?
About this edit - do you see wrestler contracts in the reference? Do you have a different reference that says it? --GRuban (talk) 04:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Please stop. Continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to File:Saif al-Islam Gaddafi.jpg, without resolving the problem that the template refers to may be considered disruptive editing. Further edits of this type may result in your account being blocked from editing Wikipedia. Melesse (talk) 06:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Obamaarab_mccain2008.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Obamaarab_mccain2008.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 03:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you remove the maintenance templates from Wikipedia articles without resolving the problem that the template refers to, as you did at File:Obamaarab mccain2008.jpg, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Melesse (talk) 03:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Friendly word of advice – please do not remove templates unless the problem has been fixed. Deletion templates must not be removed whilst the deletion is under consideration.
 * Re the image of Saif Gadaffi, I think that there may be an argument for its retention in the article on its subject. I've mentioned this at ANI and started a discussion on the talk page of the image. I not that you have already disputed the deletion of the image. You are welcome to put forward your views at the talk page, where you have much more room to state your case. Mjroots (talk) 05:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2012
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2012. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively. In particular, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. - Off2riorob (talk) 20:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Republican_Party_(United_States)_presidential_primaries,_2012. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. <b style="color:green; font-family:Corbel;">I, Jethrobot</b> drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 00:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

AN/I
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding your conduct. <b style="color:green; font-family:Corbel;">I, Jethrobot</b> drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 02:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Fyi
Thanks for your contributions to conservatism. – Lionel (talk) 23:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Bob Turner9thcongressional.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Bob Turner9thcongressional.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Off2riorob (talk) 01:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

pictures of living people
Hi, its as I understand the correct position of policy anf guidelines that living public figures require a commons compatible picture - because its just so easy t get one - adding a non commons picture to the infobox of such a person stops people looking for what we want, a commons licensed picture. You could try (I do this sometimes) emailing the subject and letting him know about the article, provide a link to it, and ask him if he would be willing to contribute a picture for the article under a commons license. Off2riorob (talk) 01:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Total Nonstop Action Wrestling
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. Housewatcher (talk) 15:25, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

RE: Restoring pic to Bob Turner (politician)
I am writing you because you used my name in an edit summary and because I truly do not understand why you re-added the pic of Bob Turner. It could be that you are unaware of discussion on my talk page, and Off2riorob's where I indicated I did not plan on restoring the pic to the article. I believe you may be unaware of that discussion because I certainly did not know, at the time I did my single restoration of the pic, and at the time I asked Off2riorob about the policy, that you and Off2riorob had already discussed the removal of the pic on both your talk page and his.

Incivility aside, within his most recent remarks Off2riorob has now stated the not unreasonable view that "The fact that it has yet to be deleted is no excuse to keep it in the article". I am now thinking that perhaps the free use and deletion policies are unclear or silent on the matter of whether a tagged pic should be removed from articles pending a final determination--but that is another matter. I do believe, that for the moment, or at least in this instance, it is not unreasonable to think the answer is yes, challenged pic should be removed during that time period. So my suggestion is that you remove the pic, but you can do what you want, I have made only one reversion and I am not going to get involved at all in an edit war over an issue where essentially we all agree on the free use policy. -Regards-KeptSouth (talk) 11:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey Screw, as it stands the pic is going to be deleted because he's still alive and we need permission. Sometimes you can find free pics on Flickr. Have you considered asking him for permission? It's easy. Check this out WP:COPYREQ. If you don't get a response before they delete it, not to worry--you just upload it again when you have permission. – Lionel (talk) 13:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Lionelt - Thanks for the advice. The odd thing is, both Screwball and I emailed the campaign for permission, and Screwball also said he would not be re-adding the pic-which is another reason why all of this should be a non-issue. See - User:Off2riorob It's not a bad picture either. Not too many people look that good at age 70. -Regards-KeptSouth (talk) 16:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding map
I am currently very busy. I have a lot of school work at the moment. Please sent me the country list, but I can't promise I can get it done and I can't promise it will be quick. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Turner office cleaning
Hi, I started a discussion about whether this should be in the article, and though hilarious, I don't think so. Please weigh in if you want. -Regards-KeptSouth (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no strong feelings on this issue.-- Sc r ew ba ll 23 talk 18:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Terrorism - Welcome Back!
Welcome back from Wiki Project Terrorism! I'm Katarighe, a Wikipedian member since 2009. I'm currently the successor of Sherurcij in September because, he has not edited Wikipedia using this account for a considerable amount of time since May 2010. We are trying to renovate the new WP page this fall 2011 and we look forward this month whats next. If you are interested, start the renovation with us and new awards on contributing terrorism are coming soon. The WP terrorism newsletter begins January 2012. See you on October for the updates on WP terrorism. I will send this message next month about the updates. Good Luck.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Terrorism at 22:40, 25 September 2011 (UTC).

The Right Stuff: September 2011
<div style="font-family:Wedding Text, Linotext, Old English Text MT, serif; font-size:58px; line-height:69px; padding-bottom:7px;"> <div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size:100%; background-color:transparent; border:none; color:#666; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; text-align:center;"> September 2011

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size:90%; background-color:transparent; border:none; color:#666; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; padding-top:10px; ">FROM THE EDITOR

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size:190%; background-color:transparent; border:none; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; ">An Historic Milestone

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> By Lionelt Welcome to the inaugural issue of The Right Stuff, the newsletter of WikiProject Conservatism. The Project has developed at a breakneck speed since it was created on February 12, 2011 with the edit summary, "Let's roll!" With over 50 members the need for a project newsletter is enormous. With over 3000 articles to watch, an active talk page and numerous critical discussions spread over various noticeboards, it has become increasingly difficult to manage the information overload. The goal of The Right Stuff is to help you keep up with the changing landscape.

The Right Stuff is a newsletter consisting of original reporting. Writers will use a byline to "sign" their contributions. Just as with The Signpost, "guidelines such as 'no ownership of articles', and particularly 'no original research', will not necessarily apply."

WikiProject Conservatism has a bright future ahead: this newsletter will allow us tell the story. All that's left to say is: "Let's roll!"

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size:90%; background-color:transparent; border:none; color:#666; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; padding-top:10px; ">PROJECT NEWS

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size:190%; background-color:transparent; border:none; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; ">New Style Guide Unveiled

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> By Lionelt A new style guide to help standardize editing was rolled out. It focuses on concepts, people and organizations from a conservatism perspective. The guide features detailed article layouts for several types of articles. You can help improve it here. The Project's Article Collaboration currently has two nominations, but they don't appear to be generating much interest. You can get involved with the Collaboration here.

I am pleased to report that we have two new members: Rjensen and Soonersfan168. Rjensen is a professional historian and has access to JSTOR. Soonersfan168 says he is a "young conservative who desires to improve Wikipedia!" Unfortunately we will be seeing less of Geofferybard, as he has announced his semi-retirement. We wish him well. Be sure to stop by their talk pages and drop off some Wikilove.

-

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size:90%; background-color:transparent; border:none; color:#666; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto;padding-top:10px; ">ARTICLE REPORT

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size:190%; background-color:transparent; border:none; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; ">3,000th Article Tagged

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> By Lionelt On August 3rd Peter Oborne, a British journalist, became the Project's 3,000th tagged article. It is a tribute to the membership that we have come this far this quickly. The latest Featured Article is Richard Nixon. Our congratulations to Wehwalt for a job well done. The article with the most page views was Rick Perry with 887,389 views, not surprising considering he announced he was running for president on August 11th. Follwing Perry were Michele Bachmann and Tea Party movement. The Project was ranked 75th based on total edits, which is up from 105th in July. The article with the most edits was Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2012 with 374 edits. An RFC regarding candidate inclusion criteria generated much interest on the talk page.

A few things
Hi Screw! I just wanted to stop by and mention a few things. First, wondering what's going on with McMahon? That article is ready for WP:GAN. Don't you want a star on your userpage? Second I've noticed you're having some difficulty with your uploads. I have a decent grasp of free/non-free and would be happy to give you some tips on preventing deletions. Also I just created the Commons branch of WikiProject Conservatism. It's just getting off the ground. Check it out here:. You seem to be a magnet for conflict (smile), if you feel like you're getting pushed around please drop a note on my talk. I'd be happy to act as a go-between. TTFN – Lionel (talk) 08:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Jonathon Sharkey
Screwball, I would like your input on the discussions at Talk:Jonathon Sharkey and Articles for deletion/Jonathon Sharkey (5th nomination). On the talk page there have been allegations of Sharkey lying about his military service and PHD. While it does seem pretty convincing. Sharkey not only vehemently denied it but asked Saturn to delete the page. I love to hear your input. Thanks! SOXROX (talk) 04:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring&#32; after a review of the reverts you have made on Jonathon Sharkey. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively. Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Difluoroethene (talk) 19:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

October 2011
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Difluoroethene. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. The Bushranger One ping only 01:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

ANI
Several editors have chimed in to discuss your ANI addition, I'm sure we'd all appreciate it if you'd join in the discussion you started about William S. Saturn. Dayewalker (talk) 02:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The Musical in NYC Oct 22
You are invited to Wikipedia:The Musical in NYC, an editathon, Wikipedia meet-up and lectures that will be held on Saturday, October 22, 2011, at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts (at Lincoln Center), as part of the Wikipedia Loves Libraries events being held across the USA.

All are welcome, sign up on the wiki and here !--Pharos (talk) 05:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

No personal attacks
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at the DRV on Bert Oliva. "he never reached full sanity after a battle we had" is an absolutely unacceptable comment on a fellow editor. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. I see you have previous warnings; I hope this will be the last. JohnCD (talk) 11:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The Right Stuff: October 2011
<div style="font-family:Wedding Text, Linotext, Old English Text MT, serif; font-size:58px; line-height:69px; padding-bottom:7px;"> <div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size:100%; background-color:transparent; border:none; color:#666; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; text-align:center;"> October 2011

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size:90%; background-color:transparent; border:none; color:#666; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; padding-top:10px; ">INTERVIEW

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size:190%; background-color:transparent; border:none; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; ">An Interview with Dank

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 85%;"> By Lionelt

The Right Stuff caught up with Dank, the recently elected Lead Coordinator of WikiProject Military History. MILHIST is considered by many to be one of the most successful projects in the English Wikipedia.

Q: Tell us a little about yourself. A: I'm Dan, a Wikipedian since 2007, from North Carolina. I started out with an interest in history, robotics, style guidelines, and copyediting. These days, I'm the lead coordinator for the Military History Project and a reviewer of Featured Article Candidates. I've been an administrator and maintained WP:Update, a summary of policy changes, since 2008.

Q: What is your experience with WikiProjects? A: I guess I'm most familiar with WP:MILHIST and WP:SHIPS, and I'm trying to get up to speed at WP:AVIATION. I've probably talked with members of most of the wikiprojects at one time or another.

Q: What makes a WikiProject successful? A: A lot of occasional contributors who think of the project as fun rather than work, a fair number of people willing to write or review articles, a small core of like-minded people who are dedicated to building and maintaining the project, and access to at least a few people who are familiar with reviewing standards and with Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

Q: Do you have any tips for increasing membership? A: Aim for a consistent, helpful and professional image. Let people know what the project is doing and what they could be doing, but don't push.

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 85%;"> If you've got a core group interested in building a wikiproject, it helps if they do more listening than talking at first ... find out what people are trying to do, and offer them help with whatever it is. Some wikiprojects build membership by helping people get articles through the review processes. - <div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size:90%; background-color:transparent; border:none; color:#666; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; padding-top:10px; "> DISCUSSION REPORT

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size:190%; background-color:transparent; border:none; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; ">Abortion Case Plods Along

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 85%;">

By Lionelt The arbitration request submitted by Steven Zhang moved into its second month. The case, which evaluates user conduct, arose from contentious discussions regarding the naming of the Pro-life and Pro-choice articles, and a related issue pertaining to the inclusion of "death" in the lede of Abortion. A number of members are involved. On the Evidence page ArtifexMahem posted a table indicating that DMSBel made the most edits to the Abortion article. DMSBel has announced their semi-retirement. Fact finding regarding individual editor behavior has begun in earnest on theWorkshop page. Last month it was decided that due to the success of the new Dispute Resolution Noticeboard the Content Noticeboard would be shut down. Wikiquette Assistance will remain active. The DRN is primarily intended to resolve content disputes.

- <div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size:90%; background-color:transparent; border:none; color:#666; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; padding-top:10px; ">PROJECT NEWS

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size:190%; background-color:transparent; border:none; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; ">Article Incubator Launched

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 85%;"> By Lionelt Was your article deleted in spite of your best efforts to save it? You should consider having a copy restored to the Incubator where project members can help improve it. Upon meeting content criteria, articles are graduated to mainspace. The Incubator is also ideal for collaborating on new article drafts. Star Parker is the first addition to the incubator. The article was deleted per WP:POLITICIAN. WikiProject Conservatism is expanding. We now have a satellite on Commons. Any help in categorizing images or in getting the fledgling project off the ground is appreciated. We have a few new members who joined the project in September. Please give a hearty welcome to Conservative Philosopher, Screwball23 and Regushee by showing them some Wikilove. Screwball23 has been on WikiPedia for five years and has made major improvements to Linda McMahon. Regushee is not one for idle chit chat: an amazing 93% of their edits are in article space.

Feedback Dashboard task force
Hi Screwball23,

I noticed you replied to some feedback from the new Feedback Dashboard feature – you might be interested in the task force Steven Walling and I just created for this purpose: Feedback Dashboard. Thanks for diving in on your own and helping the newbies, and I hope you'll sign up! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 00:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Input requested
WT:New editor feedback. Thanks, <span style="font-family:Palatino, Georgia, serif;">Steven Walling (WMF) &bull; talk   21:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Mistake
Hi, in this edit you haven't "removed editorializing" but restored it. Maybe you misclicked? Regards Hekerui (talk) 09:08, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

3RR - edit war - warning
Please be advised that your reverts at Rick Santorum may be construed at WP:AN/EW as edit war, and that you are currently already at the bright line limit of 3RR. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Reported . -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

November 2011
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for Edit-warring and tendentious and disruptive editing. An explanation for the block is here., as you did at Rick Santorum. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Mkativerata (talk) 19:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The Right Stuff: November 2011
<div style="font-family:Wedding Text, Linotext, Old English Text MT, serif; font-size:58px; line-height:69px; padding-bottom:7px;"> <div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size:100%; background-color:transparent; border:none; color:#666; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; text-align:center;">

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size:90%; background-color:transparent; border:none; color:#666; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; padding-top:10px; ">PROJECT NEWS

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size:190%; background-color:transparent; border:none; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; ">WikiProject Conservatism faces the ultimate test

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 85%;"> By Lionelt On October 7, WikiProject Conservatism was nominated for deletion by member Binksternet. He based his rationale on what he described as an undefinable scope, stating that the project is "at its root undesirable". Of the 40 participants in the discussion, some agreed that the scope was problematic; however, they felt it did not justify deletion of the project. A number of participants suggested moving the project to "WikiProject American conservatism". The overwhelming sentiment was expressed by Guerillero who wrote: "A project is a group of people. This particular group does great work in their topic area[,] why prevent them from doing this[?]" In the end there was negligible opposition to the project and the result of the discussion was "Keep". The proceedings of the deletion discussion were picked up by The Signpost, calling the unfolding drama "the first MfD of its kind". The Signpost observed that attempting to delete an active project was unprecedented. The story itself became a source of controversy which played out at the Discuss This Story section, and also at the.

Two days after the project was nominated, the Conservatism Portal was also nominated for deletion as "too US-biased". There was no support for deletion amongst the 10 participants, with one suggestion to rename the portal. In other news, a new portal focusing on conservatism has been created at WikiSource. Wikisource is an online library of free content publications with 254,051 accessible texts. One highlight of the portal's content is Reflections on the Revolution in France by Edmund Burke.

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 85%;"> October saw a 6.4% increase in new members, bringing the total membership to 58. Seven of the eight new members joined after October 12; the deletion discussions may have played a role in the membership spike. Mwhite148 is a member of the UK Conservative Party. Stating that he is not a conservative, Kleinzach noted his "lifetime interest in British, European and international politics." Let's all make an effort to welcome the new members with an outpouring of Wikilove.

Click to keep up to date on all the happenings at WikiProject Conservatism. - <div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size:90%; background-color:transparent; border:none; color:#666; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; padding-top:10px; "> DISCUSSION REPORT

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size:190%; background-color:transparent; border:none; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; ">Timeline of conservatism is moved

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 85%;"> By Lionelt Timeline of conservatism, a Top-importance list, was nominated for deletion on October 3. The nominator stated that since conservatism in an "ambiguous concept", the timeline suffers from original research. There were a number of "Delete", as well as "Keep" votes. The closing administrator reasoned that consensus dictated that the list be renamed. The current title is Timeline of modern American conservatism.

Feedback Dashboard upgrade
Hi Screwball23,

Thanks for signing up for the Feedback Dashboard response team! I wanted to let you know that the tool just got an important update (see here for details). I also wanted to invite you to the IRC office hours session that Steven and I are going to hold this Sunday, December 4. Hope you can make it and share your experience/questions with us! Thanks again, Maryana (WMF) (talk) 23:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I wanted an unbiased judge to review this case and not use prejudice against me. Your knee-jerk reaction to say "you were clearly editwarring" is not a fair evaluation. I want to make it very clear that I follow the rules and I put researched information on the page. I did nothing wrong. User:Collect is very good at gaming the system; he gave me a warning and refused to respond to any constructive discussion that I wanted to have on the subject. I want to appeal but I don't know who to speak with. All I know is that User:Jpgordon did not do any due diligence in responding to my case. This is also the first time I have ever appealed a block, because I never knew how to before. It is not right to bite me immediately for doing the right thing.-- Sc r ew ba ll 23 talk 16:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011
Your recent editing history at Rick Santorum shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. And I'll give myself one too, just to be fair. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Rick Santorum
Disputed desired addition - hi - shall we WP:RFC or just discuss on the talkpage till we find consensus - clearly the issue is over six years old and as such there can be no hurry to add it to the WP:BLP - meet you there, regards, - Youreallycan (talk) 01:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Civility
Even when you disagree with other editors, please don't call them "losers".  Will Beback   talk    01:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you ever been blocked for no reason? By people who succeeded only because they knew how to abuse the system? I thought so. So don't come out and try to give me your advice.-- Sc r ew ba ll 23 talk 01:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not just advice. WP:CIVILITY is a policy, not just a suggestion. It's better to keep your opinions of other editors to yourself.    Will Beback    talk    01:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, thank you for defending the civility policy. I wish you were there when I was being attacked by those scumbags, when they violated WP:NOTCENSORED and wildly misinterpreted the WP:NOTRUMORS policy. Seriously man, it's not fair to enforce one set of rules on me and none on them, so don't even try to use your holier than thou attitude on me. You're not fooling anyone.-- Sc r ew ba ll 23 talk 14:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Presidential Graph
Dear "Mr. Screwball"?

Thank you for your honest feedback regarding the presidential republic polling graph. To be honest, I can't find the discussion page (with your arguments) you referring to. Could you point me in the right direction? Your request for a graph with polling figures on the y-axis, and time-frame on the x-axis-- this is exactly what my old graph does, only without the numbers, which I believe is key to fulfilling your layman purpose; after all numbers scare people, are confusing, are present in abundance and visually overwhelming. Anyway, I can email you the the original file should you wish to add your own spin on the graph. Please email my personal email at taylorluker1@gmail.com, as I don't check my Wikipedia page very often. To be honest, I find this to be the most frustrating part of Wikpedia: pouring my heart and energy into something valuable, even only marginally valuable only to have others delete it's value from the public sphere, simply because they don't like it-- not because it is factually inaccurate. Errr. But I respect ya'lls viewpoint.

Thank you!

On an unrelated note.....

As a Wikipedian you must be brilliant, therefore I thought you might have some value feedback to offer.....

I am applying for a few social entrepreneurship fellowships and was wondering if you’d be kind enough to review the application essays (~5 pages). My idea involves technology, organizations and non-profit stuff.

If yes, essays are here: http://db.tt/TTrUiVS1 and here: http://db.tt/WRTrqKTf. I welcome any/all feedback in any medium. Please tear it up alive, you can’t hurt my feelings. If possible, by a week from today.

Thank you so much for considering! This means the world to me. I thank you advance-- I am forever indebted.

Thank you,

Luke taylorluker1@gmail.com Taylorluker (talk) 05:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Locks
Re: your recent comment at Talk:Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012, see WP:RFPP. I haven't been paying a lot of attention to the Johnson issue, so I don't know if those involved are new users/anon IPs or experienced (i.e. auto-confirmed) editors, which would make a difference in whether to request semi-protection or full protection. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 04:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Gingrich
Thanks, but I'd rather not be drawn into political BLPs if I can help it. We probably need a Presidential election BLP task force! Dougweller (talk) 18:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Problems with upload of File:384690 Newt-Gingrich-as-Uncle-Scrooge.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:384690 Newt-Gingrich-as-Uncle-Scrooge.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 05:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Newt Gingrich presidential campaign, 2012, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Double image (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

About your AN3 Posting
First, you should note that if any blocking was going to occur, it would be to block you for violating WP:CONSENSUS. You're having a content dispute - they happen all the time. Follow the processes, in WP:DR. If I were to have protected the page, it would have been at a version to include the candidate until such a time as new consensus was found. You can always open an WP:RFC to ask the community to comment on whether or not the candidate belongs. THAT is how Wikipedia works, not continually re-removing something that you don't think belongs. You are one of the authors of an edit-war - one that would not have occurred if you had followed dispute resolution. You were bold, someone reverted, you must discuss until new consensus is formed ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 15:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have reverted your personal attack from my talkpage. You are to follow the processes in WP:DR - no if's, and's or but's.  If another admin had felt my decision was in the wrong on AN3, then they would have acted differently - there are, after all, dozens of admins who monitor that page.  There is no "appeal" when you can't even bother to follow the basic editing practices that are provided to you. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 19:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, so you want to BS me again with policies, while you yourself want to abuse your own privileges as an admin and completely ignore one side of the dispute? That's disgusting. Don't talk to me, because you clearly have no idea what a poor manager you are for this encyclopedia.-- Sc r ew ba ll 23 talk 02:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 12:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Reported again for edit warring, personal attacks, ignoring consensus, and sockpuppetry
Your recent editing history at Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012 shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly.You seem to be very familiar with these, so I wont need to explain anything. --Metallurgist (talk) 06:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * New evidence proves you have edit warred by violating 3RR.--Metallurgist (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

SockPuppetry
I just wanted to tell you that a user has reported you for Sockpupperty.... 

I suggest that you call him out on his bluff. And if possible make note of the way he failed to inform you.68.39.100.32 (talk) 01:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

language towards other editors
Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks, such as your addition to Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012 can easily be misinterpreted. Wikipedia is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing. Please do not use inflammatory language in edit summaries. Assume good faith when dealing with other editors Incitatus13 (talk) 05:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for edit warring and tendentious editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 20:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You're welcome to talk to me - I am, after all watching this talkpage. Note, you're not blocked for WP:SOCK ... indeed, I didn't even take that into account.  You have edit-warred, pure and simple.  I even advised you gently on at least one occasion.  It's not that I wholly disagree with your POV, I disagree with your methods...and those behaviours are what have led to this.  You totally ignore WP:CONSENSUS and the collegial atmosphere of this project.  I am, however, quite willing to listen if you would like to go back to the 5 pillars of Wikipedia and stop being disruptive to this project ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 13:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I forgot to put a notice here to inform the user that I had reset and extended the block to 6 weeks at 01:15, January 31, 2012 per this SPI. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  17:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, then what an absolutely stupid thing for someone to have done. Socks and sockers don't deserve the effort in trying to help ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 21:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what Bwilkins is tryign to say. The sarcasm is not helpful and I don't even understand why he fee entitled to make the block and deny me, closing any discussion I could have with unbiased editors. I only edit wiht my account. This is untrue and I want to appeal to an unbiased admin. BWilkins is currently abusing his admin privileges by blocking me without reason. Please help me or inform me how I can get help to remove this block.-- Sc r ew ba ll 23 talk 02:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * On Wikipedia we have a concept of escalating blocks. Your  past pattern of blocks, and continued edit-warring led you to the original short block that I implemented.  As it was your behaviour that led to it, it's pretty difficult for you to claim "admin abuse" and that I had "no reason".  I was quite willing to hear what you had to say, and that's why I watch this page.  However, while blocked, it appears that you evaded the block, using what's known as a WP:SOCK.  Your block was amended by someone else because of this, not me.  I see at least 3 independent admins, all who have agreed that the block is valid, fair, and required to protect the project.  Socking is one of the lowest forms of action on Wikipedia, and the proof is pretty clear.  As such, you're likely to find very little all-out attempts to help you.  You may appeal to WP:ARBCOM, most likely via the ban appeals subcommittee.  You may also e-mail your unblock request - but you should read and understand the guide to appealing blocks first.  While visiting ArbCom, you may also wish to try and provide proof of my "admin abuse" to them - they may listen if you can present a case that actually proves it. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 12:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Screwball, it is my absolute apologies for having this sock block over your head. I've just conferred with a functionary and have found where I slipped up. You were cleared of all such socking, and it is my apologies for this to be over your head. Your original block was restored and is still active. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  03:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I, for one, am glad the sock accusation is gone too. It was disappointing/frustrating to think that someone who actually had some positive things to add to the project had gone that far off the map.  EW and TE are bad enough; stooping to socking would have been pretty much the end ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 10:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Screwball, I noticed you're having some difficulty. Can I be of assistance? – Lionel (talk) 05:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I want the admin who abused his privileges and had me blocked to be punished. I also want to be unblocked to contribute to wikipedia.-- Sc r ew ba ll 23 talk 03:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I can't help you with the first item, but getting unblocked may be within the realm of possibility. You may be able to get unblocked if you take care of 2 items. But first, you'll have to cease any and all commenting about the blocking admin. Ie until you get unblocked anyway. Can you hold your tongue about the admin? – Lionel (talk) 04:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Lionelt, I've showed this editor The Guide to Appealing Blocks, but he chooses to not follow the steps. Unblock is pretty easy, especially now that everyone has apologized and moved on from the WP:SOCK concept. Take a look through this page: do you see any sign that they recognize why they were blocked, or a bunch of WP:NOTTHEM?  Do you see any sign that the actions that led to the block will not recur?  I unblock a lot of editors - it's not rocket science. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 11:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * @Bwilkins: "I unblock a lot of editors." I can't believe you just wrote that. TO ME of all people! (I'm being facetious. Well, maybe half-facetious, half-sarcastic.) Anyway, Screwball's page makes interesting reading. He definitely picked the right username! (Kidding) I love Will's request, almost pleading, "please don't call them "losers"". But seriously, Screw does good work. There's a FA out there somewhere with his name on it. You ask good questions about block recurrence. But I have a question: is there a mechanism we can put in place to intervene before something blockable happens? – Lionel (talk) 11:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The first block on June 17, 2010 was the first attempt at intervention. The four additional ones between then and when I had to protect the project from the exact same offence were all attempts at a mechanism for intervention.  You edit-war, you get blocked ... you edit war again, you get blocked for longer.  Pretty standard across the board. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 12:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Screw is good at editing. I'm good at not getting blocked. I can help Screw avoid blocks, and he can help get me FAs and GAs for WPConservatism. Getting Screw to agree to some ground rules would be a first step. E.g. only use foul language on his user talk. 1RR limit. Next we put an edit notice on his talk requesting that I be CC'ed for all warnings. If everything works according to plan, Screw will edit to his heart's content and if he gets into trouble I'll ride in and save the Wiki. You know I had a similar setup before. It was working great... that is until the editor got a bad unlucky block, even though he was only at 1RR, and a certain admin wouldn't unblock. Boy, back then I wish I had had a "I unblock a lot of editors" admin instead of a "can, and will, make difficult blocks" admin (more facetiousness).  – Lionel (talk) 13:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If you're offerring to mentor Screwball, that's not a bad concept. Of course, cc'ing you on warnings is not likely, nor easy.  As a mentor, it'd be your job to monitor your mentee's talkpage accordingly.  Note: performing difficult blocks on difficult editors and being willing to unblock those who get simply caught up in the crap are two different things - and are indeed merely a part of the same mindset.  The job is to protect: I don't hold grudges, and I look at every single case differently.  Remember, my basic philosophy is that everyone has something to add to Wikipedia: many just don't know it yet.  Difficult blocks are for those who don't know it.  Unblocks are for those who we don't need to protect the project from because they're ready to add something. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 13:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The Right Stuff: January 2012
<div style="font-family:Wedding Text, Linotext, Old English Text MT, serif; font-size:58px; line-height:69px; padding-bottom:7px;"> <div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size:100%; background-color:transparent; border:none; color:#666; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; text-align:center;"> January 2012

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size:90%; background-color:transparent; border:none; color:#666; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; padding-top:10px; ">ARTICLE REPORT <div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size:190%; background-color:transparent; border:none; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; ">Wikipedia's Newest Featured Portal: Conservatism

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 85%;"> By Lionelt On January 21, The Conservatism Portal was promoted to Featured Portal (FP) due largely to the contributions of Lionelt. This is the first Featured content produced by WikiProject Conservatism. The road to Featured class was rocky. An earlier nomination for FP failed, and in October the portal was "Kept" after being nominated for deletion.

Member Eisfbnore significantly contributed to the successful Good Article nomination of Norwegian journalist and newspaper editor Nils Vogt in December. Eisfbnore also created the article. In January another Project article was promoted to Featured Article. Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias, a president of Brazil, attained Featured class with significant effort by Lecen. The Article Incubator saw its first graduation in November. A collaboration spearheaded by Mzk1 and Trackerseal successfully developed Star Parker to pass the notability guideline. -

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size:90%; background-color:transparent; border:none; color:#666; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; padding-top:10px; ">PROJECT NEWS

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size:190%; background-color:transparent; border:none; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; ">Project Scope Debated

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 85%;"> By Lionelt Another discussion addressing the project scope began in December. Nine alternatives were presented in the contentious, sometimes heated discussion. Support was divided between keeping the exitsing scope, or adopting a scope with more specificity. Some opponents of the specific scope were concerned that it was too limiting and would adversely affect project size. About twenty editors participated in the discussion.

Inclusion of the article Ku Klux Klan (KKK) was debated. Supporters for inclusion cited sources describing the KKK as "conservative." The article was excluded with more than 10 editors participating.

Project membership continues to grow. There are currently 73 members. Member Goldblooded (pictured) volunteers for the UK Conservative Party and JohnChrysostom is a Christian Democrat. North8000 is interested in libertarianism. We won't tell WikiProject Libertarianism he's slumming. Let's stop by their talkpages and share some Wikilove.

Click to keep up to date on all the happenings at WikiProject Conservatism.

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size:90%; background-color:transparent; border:none; color:#666; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; padding-top:10px; ">DISCUSSION REPORT

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size:190%; background-color:transparent; border:none; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; ">Why is Everyone Talking About Rick Santorum?

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 85%;"> By Lionelt

Articles about the GOP presidential candidate and staunch traditional marriage supporter have seen an explosion of discussion. On January 8 an RFC was opened (here) to determine if Dan Savage's website link should be included in Campaign for "santorum" neologism. The next day the Rick Santorum article itself was the subject of an RFC (here) to determine if including the Savage neologism was a violation of the BLP policy. Soon after a third was opened (here) at Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality. This RFC proposes merging the neologism article into the controversy article.

The Abortion case closed in November after 15 weeks of contentious arbitration. The remedies include semi-protection of all abortion articles (numbering 1,500), sanctions for some editors including members of this Project, and a provision for a discussion to determine the names of what are colloquially known as the pro-life and pro-choice articles. The Committee endorsed the "1 revert rule" for abortion articles.

<div style="clear:both; width:100%; border-bottom:3px double #999; border-top:3px double #bbb; padding:3px;">

Orphaned non-free image File:HedgeFundMistress.jpeg
 Thanks for uploading File:HedgeFundMistress.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 03:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

April 2012
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Bob Turner (politician) appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this. Thank you. Soviet King Who, me? 04:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 10
Hi. When you recently edited Bob Turner (politician), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peter King (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

3RR Warning
You are at 3RR currently at Bob Turner (politician), and at 4RR in 30 hours. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Go ahead, keep gloating... I'm sure there will be some sensible admin out there who will allow me to come back and continue my hard work.-- Sc r ew ba ll 23 talk 01:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 23:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * This is your sixth warning for edit warring, and it seems that you were already well aware of the policy and you chose to ignore it, big time. I'm going to give you some advice: Stop edit warring on articles that interest you. You have ignored the edit warring policy on too many occasions to be trusted not to do it again. The next time you edit war, your account could be blocked forever. In addition to edit warring, your approach to a disputed edit has been completely based upon ignorance; you have continued to ignore the advice editors have been giving you, and you've not started a single thread about a dispute on the article, despite your intentions to do so. Similarly, if you cannot see what's wrong with your editing, I don't see how you can call Collect (as seen above) 'gloating'. He hasn't done anything wrong here, he's telling you that you've made a mistake. You would have to be a complete idiot to not realise that what you were doing was bad, and yet you continue to feign ignorance, while at the same time dismissing that the advice the editors are giving you about your edits are hopeless. This is pure disruptive Screwball23. If all you want to do is be disruptive, find somewhere else to do it, because believe me, admins are still not happy with you due to serious concerns regarding your maturity.   Soviet King  Говорите со мной. 06:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

November 2012
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for being a sockmaster account. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:37, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Goes to the Movies in NYC this Saturday Dec 1
You are invited to Wikipedia Goes to the Movies in NYC, an editathon, Wikipedia meet-up and workshops focused on film and the performing arts that will be held on Saturday, December 1, 2012, at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts (at Lincoln Center), as part of the Wikipedia Loves Libraries events being held across the USA.

All are welcome, sign up on the wiki and at meetup.com!--Pharos (talk) 07:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Celebration and Mini-Conference in NYC Saturday Feb 23
You are invited to celebrate Wikipedia Day and the 12th anniversary (!) of the founding of the site at Wikipedia Day NYC on Saturday February 23, 2013 at New York University; sign up for Wikipedia Day NYC here, or at bit.ly/wikidaynyu. Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues!

We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience!--Pharos (talk) 03:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Meetup NYC this Sunday April 14
Hi Screwball23! You're invited to our next meeting for Wikipedia Meetup NYC on Sunday April 14 -this weekend- at Symposium Greek Restaurant @ 544 W 113th St (in the back room), on the Upper West Side in the Columbia University area.

Please sign up, and add your ideas to the agenda for Sunday. Thanks!

Delivered on behalf of User:Pharos, 17:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Upcoming Saturday events - March 1: Harlem History Editathon and March 8: NYU Law Editathon
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Saturday June 21: Wiki Loves Pride
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Sunday July 6: WikNYC Picnic
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Sunday August 17: NYC Wiki-Salon and Skill Share
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Thursday December 4: NYC Wiki-Salon and Skill Share
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Saturday February 7 in NYC: Black Life Matters Editathon
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Sunday March 22: Wikipedia Day NYC Celebration and Mini-Conference
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

April 29: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

June 10: WikiWednesday Salon / Wikimedia NYC Annual Meeting
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

July 8: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Sunday August 2: WikNYC Picnic
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

August 19: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

September 16: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Saturday October 3: WikiArte Latin America Edit-a-thon @ MoMA
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Thursday October 15: Women in Architecture Edit-a-thon @ Guggenheim (drop-in any time, noon-8pm!)
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Thursday October 15: Women in Architecture Edit-a-thon @ Guggenheim (drop-in any time, noon-8pm!)
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Oct 28: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Sunday Nov 22: Soviet Jewry Edit-a-thon & Women In Science Edit-a-thon
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

== Dec 9: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC; Dec 12: Art & Law editathon + Dec 13: Black Film editathon ==

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Saturday February 6 in NYC: Black Life Matters Editathon
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Feb 16: Art+Feminism Training / Photo-Poetics @ Guggenheim Feb 17: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Saturday, March 5: Art+Feminism Edit-a-thon @ MoMA
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

March 16: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

April 13: WikiWednesday Salon NYC and Mini-Video Opportunity
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Saturday April 30: Contemporary Art of the Middle East and North Africa @ Guggenheim
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

May 25: WikiWednesday Salon NYC / Enterprise MediaWiki Conference
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Sunday June 5: Women in Jewish History Edit-a-thon
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

June 15: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Wednesday June 29: Wiki Loves Pride Edit-a-thon @ MoMA
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Sunday July 10: WikNYC Picnic @ Central Park
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

August 17: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

September 14: WikiWednesday Salon / Wikimedia NYC Annual Meeting
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Sun October 16: CommonsLab / Open House NY Photo Contest + Hackathon
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Saturday October 22: WikiArte Latin American Edit-a-thon @ MoMA
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Saturday November 12: Women in Science Edit-a-thon @ NY Academy of Sciences (plus Sunday Indigenous People's Justice event)
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Saturday December 3: Contemporary Chinese Art Edit-a-thon @ Guggenheim
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

December 21: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC (plus Wikipedia Day on Jan 15!)
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

February 15: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

March 11: Art+Feminism Edit-a-thon @ MoMA (and beyond!)
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Sunday March 26: Action=History Wiki-Hackathon @ Ace Hotel
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Orphaned non-free image File:Smackdownyourvote2008.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Smackdownyourvote2008.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Wwfposter.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Wwfposter.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:25, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

April 19: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Voter ID laws in the United States
Template:Voter ID laws in the United States has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 14:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Sunday May 21: Metropolitan Museum of Art Edit-a-thon + global online challenge
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

May 24: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Thursday June 22: Wiki Loves Pride Edit-a-thon @ MoMA
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Sunday July 9: WikNYC Picnic @ Governors Island
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

July 19: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Sunday July 30: Action=History Wiki-Hackathon @ Ace Hotel
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

August 30: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

September 27: WikiWednesday Salon / Wikimedia NYC Annual Meeting
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
 * P.S. On the weekend before the annual meeting, you can join: Action=History @ Ace Hotel (Sunday, September 24, 2017)

Sunday October 15: Wikipedia @ Open House New York / Weekend Photo Competition
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

October 18: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Metropolitan Museum of Art Edit-a-thon (Nov 19) and global online Wikipedia Asian Art Month (Nov 1-30)
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

November 15: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC @ NYU ITP
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

December 13: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

February 21: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

March 21: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

CANCELLED: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

May 23: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

== June 20: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC (and Pratt Women Wikipedia Design this Saturday June 16) ==

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Thursday July 12: Wiki Loves Pride Edit-a-thon @ Jefferson Market Library
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Sunday July 29: Annual Wiki-Picnic @ Prospect Park
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

August 29: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

September 26: WikiWednesday Salon / Wikimedia NYC Annual Meeting
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

== Sun October 14: Open House New York Weekend Upload Party @ NYU ITP and Indigenous People's Justice Edit-a-thon @ Interference Archive ==

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

October 24: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Sunday Oct 28: Wikidata Birthday Party
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

December 19: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

January 13: Wikimedia NYC invites you to Wikipedia Day 2019
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Feb 27 WikiWednesday Salon + Mar 2 MoMA Art+Feminism and beyond
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

== March 20: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC + March 23: Asian Art Archive/New York Public Library ==

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

April 17: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC + April 4 and 5: LaGuardia Community College Translatathon 2019
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

May 22: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

June 19: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC (stay tuned for Pride on weekend!)
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Sunday June 23: Wiki Loves Pride @ Metropolitan Museum of Art
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Sunday July 14: Annual NYC Wiki-Picnic @ Roosevelt Island
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

August 28: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC (+editathons before and after)
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Saturday Sept 7: Met Fashion Edit-a-thon @ Metropolitan Museum of Art
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Sept 25: WikiWednesday Salon NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Oct 23: WikiWednesday Salon NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Saturday Nov 16: Wikipedia Asian Month Edit-a-thon @ Metropolitan Museum of Art
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Nov 20: WikiWednesday Salon NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Dec 18: WikiWednesday Salon NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Jan 22: WikiWednesday Salon NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Saturday Jan 25: Met 'Understanding America' Edit-a-thon @ Metropolitan Museum of Art
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Feb 19: WikiWednesday Salon NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

March 18: First ever ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

April 22: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Sat May 9: Symposium on Wikipedia and COVID-19
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 14:48, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

May 20: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 16:00, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

June 17: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 01:54, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Sun Aug 16: Great American Wiknic NYC & Beyond
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 22:29, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Sat Sep 26: Met Fashion Virtual Edit Meet-up
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 17:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

October 21: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 04:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

October 18: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC (plus weekend editathons)
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 17:57, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

December 16: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 01:55, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Friday Jan 15: ONLINE Wikipedia Day NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 14:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

February 17: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 01:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Thursday Feb 25: ONLINE Black Wiki History Month at the Schomburg Center
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 07:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Sat Mar 6: Met Women's History Month Virtual Edit Meet-up
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 01:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

== Sat Mar 13: Asia Art Archive in America: Art and Feminism Edit-a-thon ==

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 00:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

March 17: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC with Wikimedia Community Ireland for St Patrick's Day
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 14:48, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

April 21: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC with with Environmental focus
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 00:31, 18 April 2021 (UTC)