User talk:BoBo

I got your message, welcome aboard. Below is the standard welcome template with a bunch of links that you may find useful. Signing with the ~~~~ is the first thing you'll want to learn to do when chatting on talk pages. If you have content questions or a disagreement about an article, go to the article's talk (discussion) page and start a conversation, that is how we resolve disputes which will crop up from time to time. Don't forget to sign in before you start editing, you will develop a good reputation once people see you build an edit history. Again, keep up the good work on the editing.

Welcome!

Hello, BoBo, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! NoSeptember 23:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image Deletion

Wikipedia has been on a campaign in the last few weeks to rid the site of images that are not properly sourced. The idea is to solve the copyright issues we have. Many news photos (and the JR Brown photo appears to be from the AP) have been used under the Fair use standard, which we are trying to get away from in favor of free images (GNU Free Documentation License). Several admins have been routinely speedy deleting unsourced images with the encouragement of Jimbo Wales, wikipedia's founder. You can find plenty of image related discussions on his talk page in the past month. We have reduced non-sourced images from more than 12,000 to less than 9,000 images in the past month. What this means for the JRB article is that someone needs to find a good free image (a U.S. government sourced image is almost always free). Since she was formerly employed by California (state images generally are not free), there were likely no free images to be found. When the DC Circuit produces an image, that will be the one to grab. Until then, I would recommend editing out the image box, posting a request for an image on the article's talk page, and if you want, search for an image that is free. There may not be one to be found, though. That is the tough part of following copyright law, which was sometimes neglected until a month ago. NoSeptember 22:14, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings!

Hi, how are you? I notice you've been contributing here for a while (very much appreciated, by the way), but your user page still shows up as a red link. Perhaps you can add some info about yourself, so that the community can get to know you better. Cheers! BD2412 T 23:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello from fellow Confirm Them member

Hey Bobo, Dave II from Confirm Them. Always good to have another hand watching over the federal judge pages.-- Smashingworth 03:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a project...

that you are working on, the SCOTUS clerks. I wish you well in designing it to be useful for outside readers. Are you going to try to link clerks to the cases they worked on?... no, that would be just impossible :-). NoSeptember 22:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Alito clerks

I don't have a public source for the change in Alito clerks, but the information should be available from the Supreme Court Public Information Office, or by calling the Alito chambers directly. Is that insufficient? Chaucer1387 05:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Court nominees and the Judiciary Committee

Hi. I saw your edit summaries at Supreme Court of the United States. I don't believe there are any examples of Supreme Court nominees who did not get voted out of the Judiciary Committee, but I believe that is because any nominee for whom that is a possibility would be withdrawn before it got to that point. However, as a procedural matter, if the Judiciary Committee were to refuse to vote out the nominee, the nomination would fail (unless the Senate voted to discharge the nomination from committee, which basically never happens). To report the nomination out adversely requires a separate vote of the committee after the motion to report with the recommendation for confirmation has failed.

Even though the Judiciary Committee has not bottled up any nominations in the case of the Supreme Court, precisely this has happened to numerous nominees to lower courts as well as nominees to other governmental positions, John Bolton being the most recent prominent example. I thought this was worth a quick mention in the article; you will have seen that I couched the idea of the Judiciary Committee bottling up a nomination as a hypothetical rather than as a fact. I won't change it again, since it's a pretty technical point, but if you want to play with the wording a bit I'd welcome that. And best regards; it's always good to "meet" another person contributing to these articles. Newyorkbrad 03:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide summaries. They help fight vandalism.

I have noticed you commonly don't enter an edit summary as you didn't when you edited Louis XVI of France (see this edit). This causes me problems. When I patrol for vandalism, I use the summary to make a preliminary decision on whether or not the post is a vandal edit or not. If the summary is present (or at least a section header, the part inside the /* */), I commonly decide the edit is legit and move on.

However, if no edit summary is available, I typically resort to loading the diff for the edit. This takes time. For that reason, if your edits are all valid, I ask that you provide edit summaries. For more on how to enter an edit summary, please read Help:Edit summary.

Incidentally, it is not just me that appreciate having edit summaries. When you omit your summary, you may be telling various bots that you are vandalizing pages. For this reason, please consider providing that summary. It is very important. You can enter that summary via the edit summary box on edit pages (as shown below).

The edit summary appears in black italics in the following places:

Page history - list of changes to the page you edited
User contributions - list of all your edits
Watchlist* - list of recent changes to watched pages (logged-in users only)
diff page - shows the difference between two edits
Recent changes - list of all recent edits
Wikipedia IRC channels - real time list of all edits
Related changes - list of recent changes to pages linked to the page you edited
List of new pages: shows the edit summary of the creation.

* Use the enhanced watchlist to see all recent changes in the watched pages, not just the last change in each page.

For more tips on how to avoid being mistaken for a vandal, please visit Steps You Can Take to Avoid Being Thought of as a Vandal.

I bring this up mainly because Louis XVI of France is one of the most heavily vandalized pages. We need editors like you to encourage everyone to provide summaries and make the vandals stick out like a sore thumb. Thanks for your help in fighting these vandals. Will (Talk - contribs) 04:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Court

See Talk:Supreme Court of the United States#Zinn & objectivity. You have yet to give a decent argument for why my addition is biased (when it actually fits Wikipedia's policies perfectly fine). -- LGagnon 01:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also worthy of note: if you revert my writing one more time, you'll be in violation of Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. -- LGagnon 01:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't write it to express several different views. That's because I don't have several different books on the Supreme Court in front of me. You're asking for something unrealistic from someone doing mere volunteer work for Wikipedia. These other views will be added over time by other writers; I don't know how much experience you have with Wikipedia, but that is how it's normally done with other articles. As I said before, it doesn't matter whether or not it is only one point of view; what matters is if it's written in an unbiased manner. And please continue this conversation at Talk:Supreme Court of the United States, the proper spot to handle this discussion. -- LGagnon 05:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your restoration of a ref to the blog Confirm Them

Can you clarify what is meant by a "Confirm Them member" earlier on this page? Are you a paid employee of Eagle publishing, owner of the blog, or are you just registered with the comment section? (I.e. do you have a conflict of interest regarding the blog in question.) My understanding that the bloggers there are professionals. --Pleasantville 22:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kings of France??

Hi there BoBo. Your edits to Henri, comte de Chambord and Louis-Antoine, Duke of Angouleme in January 2007, (claiming these men reigned as Kings of France) have been questioned at those articles talk pages & at Wikipedia: WikiProject France and Wikipedia: WikiProject Biography/Royalty, take a peek. GoodDay (talk) 20:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to 'defend' your edits. GoodDay (talk) 21:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questioning minor 1st paragraph edits?

Re: John Roberts, John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito, Sandra Day O'Connor
This is a small matter. I don't understand the reasons for Sjrplscjnky's recent minor edits of articles about each of the Justices of the Supreme Court. After some time, there has been no response to inquiries posted on this editor's talk page nor has there been feedback from similar postings on the talk pages of each of the nine articles about a sitting Justice and the one about retired Justice O'Connor. Rather than simply reverting this "improvement," I thought it best to solicit comment from others who might be interested. I found your name amongst others at Talk:Supreme Court of the United States.

I'm persuaded that Sjrplscjnky's strategy of introducing academic honors in the first paragraph is unhelpful in this narrow set of articles -- that is, in Wikipedia articles about Justices of the Supreme Court. I think my reasoning might well extend as well to others on the Federal bench. In each instance, I would question adding this information only in the first paragraph -- not elsewhere in the article.

In support of my view that this edit should be reverted, please consider re-visiting articles written about the following pairs of jurists.

A1. Benjamin Cardozo
A2. Learned Hand

B1. John Marshall Harlan
B2. John Marshall Harlan II

The question becomes: Would the current version of the Wikipedia article about any one of them -- or either pair -- be improved by academic credentials in the introductory paragraph? I think not.

Perhaps it helps to repeat a wry argument Kathleen Sullivan of Stanford Law makes when she suggests that some on the Harvard Law faculty do wonder how Antonin Scalia avoided learning what others have managed to grasp about the processes of judging? I would hope this anecdote gently illustrates the point.

Less humorous, but an even stronger argument is the one Clarence Thomas makes when he mentions wanting to return his law degree to Yale.

As you can see, I'm questioning relatively trivial edit; but I hope you agree that this otherwise plausible "improvement" should be removed from introductory paragraphs of ten articles. If not, why not?

Would you care to offer a comment or observation? --Ooperhoofd (talk) 19:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Day of Spring!

Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Spring {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! ~~~~

If you live in the Southern Hemisphere and are entering the season of Autumn not Spring then I wish you a happy First Day of Autumn {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}!
To spread this message to others, add {{subst:First Day Of Spring}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Re: Prince du Sang

The names reflect what the articles are called which are usually the most common names. They don't have to be overlinked or use the "correct" French names. This is English Wikipedia and the names have to identify the individuals to English readers. Again, it may be about the French Royal Family, but we are writing in English for an English audience. You have several old French biographies. These days when titles are left in French, we drop the capital letter on the title. We do not write for seventeenth or eighteenth century audiences. Skeletons can't read. Charles 21:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me would be only your opinion and implies that you are seeking ownership of the article which is contrary to what Wikipedia is about. Consensus holds that people are referred to mostly by the names which they are known in the language in which they are being written about. Here, that is English. In English, French titles use lower-case letters and royalty, more often than not, have anglicized names and territorial designations. They are an exception to many conventions. We are not dumbing down anything, to suggest that we are I could accuse you of false intellectual snobbery in trying to push names and titles as they appear in old biographies and to suit your point of view, but I won't, at least not yet. We are not destroying history by speaking of anyone as "of Orléans" rather that "d'Orléans". The exact same things are being conveyed. They their names in the French language were different is irrelevant, it is dealt with in their respective articles and does not need to be painfully overlinked, overstated and overexaggerated. Charles 21:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prince du Sang (bis)

BoBo: Our paths have been crossing lately on the royal roads of France & I noticed that you added the title "Prince du Sang" to some royal personages. In my edit to Philippe I, Duke of Orléans :

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philippe_I%2C_Duke_of_Orl%C3%A9ans&diff=next&oldid=205217638,

I removed it without leaving a detailed explicative note, hence my contacting you here in case you would like to discuss it: I do not believe the title applies to the sons of the king, but to the male parents next in line should the king die without an heir, the first in line of these male relatives receiving the title of "Premier Prince du Sang" - the logic then is that if a male relative (cousin, uncle, nephew...) of a Fils de France is titled "Premier Prince du Sang", the Dauphin & his brothers do not have the title of "Prince du Sang", otherwise, it is the Dauphin who would be "Premier Prince du Sang".

Here are a couple of links from fr:wikipedia, as I presume you read French:

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_du_sang

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appellations_des_princes_du_sang

Frania W. (talk) 17:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization

From what people have said in WT:MOS, particularly Blueboar (who is always right), it looks to me like you'll win this argument. But just to be clear: "This should be evidence enough to demonstrate that the current Wikipedia standard is inaccurate." What should be enough evidence? Finding some manuscripts? That's rather like a Frenchman who knows no English saying, "I found a letter from 1795 where someone interpreted a passage from the US Constitution. That should settle the matter." I.e. ... let's cast a wider net and see what we get. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my response on your talk page BoBo (talk) 20:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That second paragraph explains a lot; would you like to post that in WT:MoS? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 20:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Armand-Charles de la Porte de La Meilleraye

Since you made significant contributions to the article on Hortense Mancini, I figured you might be interested in this article, too. There's still a large chunk of French in the text (I commented it out for now), but hopefully I'll get it done sooner or later. -Yupik (talk) 12:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/PUPPETMASTER for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FactStraight (talk • contribs) 12:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. I could not tell who was responsible, or which accounts are being abused. Your edits have generally been informed and appropriate. I stand corrected and please accept my apology. FactStraight (talk) 21:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bobo, Please go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/86.154.178%2C231 and read what I left for you, dtd 00:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Frania W. (talk) 01:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SCOTUS

Sorry, but your edits are wrong. SCOTUS does not make rulings on "gun control" or "exclusionary principles". That's what the legislature does. The SCOTUS makes rulings that resolve controversies over differing interpretations of the constitution and its amendments. The court did not rule today on gun control; it cannot, that is the realm of the legislature. It ruled today on the 2nd amendment's interpretation, which in the case of heller is an entirely different thing than "gun control" (Heller was an issue of collective vs. individual rights, not about "control").⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 01:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

rollback

You could use rollback, so I gave it to you. This is the full spiel. Cheers, NoSeptember 17:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Judith Whittaker

Right you are on this. She was considered for quite some time, but never formally nominated. Independent of your research, I spent the last week trying to determine if Whittaker ever was indeed formally nominated, and I finally found a reference in a very good book ("Picking Federal Judges") that indicated that she was not. This had been on my list of things to edit, so thanks for the heads-up and the conscientiousness. User:Jarvishunt (User talk:Jarvishunt) 10 November 2008 (UTC)

More on Judith Whittaker

A separate thought that addresses your comment would be to reference potential nominees who were considered but never formally nominated at the bottom of the article, in a miscellaneous section. That's probably the best option -- to set up a catch-all miscellaneous paragraph at the bottom of the article. That may well be where Whittaker winds up (and where Cox and Keisler should wind up as well). There's already a catch-all paragraph like that at the end of the Clinton judicial nominations controversy article. Format-wise, that keeps the articles cleaner. User:Jarvishunt (User talk:Jarvishunt) 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Ben C. Toledano reference

I added the Toledano reference. It's from Sheldon Goldman's book Picking Federal Judges, which I highly recommend. Toledano previously had his own Wikipedia page that was deleted on December 21, 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ben_C._Toledano). Should we resurrect it and rewrite it? I think so. Some of the commenters' complaints about the article (if you read the discussion from late 2007) are pretty weak. The page in its original form is available on the Conservapedia here: http://www.conservapedia.com/Ben_C._Toledano User:Jarvishunt (User talk:Jarvishunt) 13 November 2008 (UTC)

You ask a great question about where, if anywhere, to serve notice of an intent to resurrect the Ben C. Toledano article. Deletion review does not appear to be the appropriate place. I think it's worth just resurrecting it with no notice and then proceeding from there. (Wikipedia does instruct its users to "be bold," after all.) If other Wikipedians try to delete the resurrected and better-written Toledano article, then let them -- there would be at least two votes in such a discussion (yours and mine) to keep it, which likely would make it harder for someone proposing deletion to gain consensus. Also, thanks for your kind words about my articles a few weeks back. I'd say the same thing to you -- I've also been very impressed with your articles and the quality of your research (and your commitment to making things accurate). User:Jarvishunt (User talk:Jarvishunt) 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment made on Barack Obama Supreme Court candidates

Thank you for the heads-up on the attempt to delete. I agree with you that such an article belongs on Wikipedia, and I added my opinion to the masses. So far, given the roughly even split of "keep" and "delete" comments, it looks like the decision will be "no consensus," which means that no deletion will take place. User:Jarvishunt (User talk:Jarvishunt), 22:06 20 November 2008 (UTC)

calumet ou colombe ?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Peace_pipe.jpg

http://www.lacroixdagadez.com/images/la-colombe-de-la-paix.jpg

Frania W. (talk) 19:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear BoBo, Because of our love of (18th century) history, and our passion for the exact detail, I am certain that our paths will cross again on Wikipedia. And there probably will be times when we are not "d'accord", but we'll work out our differences. Anyway, sincere argumentation is constructive. Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 03:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

House of Bourbon du Maine

Bobo: Would you mind going to the House of Bourbon du Maine discussion page & read the comment/suggestion I left there? Thank you. FW Frania W. (talk) 02:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Louise-Françoise de Bourbon

Bonjour BoBo! RE naming of the Regent, the Parlement de Paris did not deliberate for a week. Within a week after the death of Louis XIV, Orléans was declared Regent, but the deliberation was short & stormy, and the decision taken rather quickly after the Parlement returned from an hour break. Although a blow to his ambition, du Maine took it very meekly. However, I am not going to revert you until I first find the exact text, so that there is no reverting back & forth. Cordialement, FW

Frania W. (talk) 20:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear BoBo, Thank you for returning to me & also for informing me that we are working in the same style/spirit. Your work is always so serious that I'd hate not to be in sync with you, although I realise we may not always agree on some details. I have not had time to check my books (Erlanger's L.XIV & Antoine's L.XV) on the decision taken by the parlement de Paris in naming the Régent. It was quite a scene. Like you, very busy in real life! Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 01:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merger Proposal

I have formally proposed that the United States Department of State Office of the Legal Adviser article, which you previously moved from Office of the Legal Adviser, should be merged with the Legal Adviser of the Department of State article. --TommyBoy (talk) 16:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amalia

I merely changed it as on the talk page it said it was not her name..you can redirect it back if you wish? Monsieur le Duc LouisPhilippeCharles (talk) 00:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for help on 'Massimo' family article

Dear BoBo,

I hope you can help me with regarding to the article on the 'Massimo' family (see link here), given your interest and knowledge of European heraldry. I am a regular user and editor of Wikipedia, with a particular interest in the Roman Papal families.

During some work on Wiki I came across the page on the 'Massimo' family of Rome. I noticed that the article, which had remained essentially the same since 2006 (both historically and with reference to the current heirs), had been suddenly been changed. Specifically, the last paragraph on current holders of the titles 'Prince of Arsoli' and 'Prince of Roccasecca' and their heirs had been erased, the sources removed, and only a single person referenced - called Prince Fabrizio Massimo-Brancaccio. When I reverted the article to its original form - which had gone through 100s of edits over the years - it kept being essentially vandalised back by the same person (the editor 'Fabritius'), who eventually (in the 'History' section of the page on 13 Feb 2010) identified himself as Fabrizio Massimo-Brancaccio and a member of the family (with a clear conflict of interest).

After repeated edits, the page was protected, and admin Nick D asked Fabritius and myself to start a discussion regarding the disputed last paragraph of the article. As I indicated in the note I left on Nick D's talk page (see this post), and a subsequent note I left on the 'Massimo' article talk page (see this post), I am happy to lay out the arguments and discuss the differences with Fabritius in a calm, fact-based and non-personal way.

By way of background, while the page was blocked for repeated 'edit warring' over the last paragraph, I would like to point out that I have never actually added any content to the article that wasn't already there for years before I first edited. I have only reversed the new 'vanity' edits by made by 'Fabritius' in Jan 2010 (and subsequently) and added authoritative, original online sources to back up the original paragraph. The paragraph in dispute has remained essentially unchanged since 2006 (see the edit by 'CARAVAGGISTI' on 28/09/06 in this version, para at bottom), until Dec 2009 (see the edit by LeilaniLad on 2/12/09 in this version, para at bottom), apart from 'non-structural' changes (such as a person passing away and being replaced by their heir). Between Sept 2006 and Jan 2010 many editors have altered content on the page, but the paragraph in dispute remained essentially the same.

I am not trying to push my own content or views, I am simply trying to revert the article to the state it was in before my first edit, after a sustained and repeated attempt by an editor with a clear conflict of interest (Fabritius has admitted that he is a member of the family and writing about himself - see conflict of interest link below), from changing the article to focus on himself, without providing the source back-up required.

I have begun to lay out my arguments in a researched, sourced and referenced way - easy even for someone unfamiliar with the topic to understand - on the 'Massimo' talk page. For example, I have answered Fabritius's key argument - that only he is entitled to the Princely title and the other members of the family are not - with a detailed response, with multiple references and links to an original and universally-recognised source. Fabritius presented his key arguments in the following posts: his request for an edit to the protected page (see this post), and his second request for an edit (see this post). In response, I have replied with a comprehensive answer (see this post for full details of my research) which I believe comprehensively supports my argument.

I am genuinely trying to have a civilised discussion, based on scholarship and facts, but I am not getting a reasonable response on the other side. Instead of Fabritius providing me with his counter arguments and trying to reach a solution, I am the subject of insults - being called a 'liar' (see this post), 'ridiculous' (see this post), and 'biased' (see this post). I am genuinely trying to work according the the Wiki guidelines on dispute resolution, yet I am finding it hard to have a reasoned exchange.

I fear Fabritius's clear conflict of interest (see this post on 'Fabritius's conflict of interest' for details) is making him unable to make clear, concise arguments based on real research and sources/references. Fabritius has been very active since the article was protected, repeatedly trying to appeal to Nick D directly on his talk page to just revert the edit (see these posts), yet since I have posted my detailed response to his questions well over 24hrs ago, he has been silent. As the 'conflict of interest' link above explains, I am a neutral editor, am categorically not a member of the Massimo family (despite Fabritius's strong insinuations) and do not have a conflict of interest.

Nick D (administrator) has asked me to solicit comments from editors interested in this area and I would like to invite you to comment on my arguments, which as I said I have detailed here (see this post for full details of my research).

I would welcome your comments on the 'Massimo' talk page and hope that you will support my research.

Kind regards, Historybuff1930 (talk) 02:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Tiptoety ^talk 15:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review of Philippe I, Duke of Orléans

I see you've edited Philippe I, Duke of Orléans in the past, so I just thought I'd let you know I reviewed the article against GA status. I think the article still needs some work, and you can find my comments here: Talk:Philippe I, Duke of Orléans/GA1. Thanks, Ruby2010 (talk) 20:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Princess) Henrietta (Anne) of England

I would appreciate your opinion about the proper name of (Princess) Henrietta (Anne) of England, see Talk:Princess Henrietta of England JdH (talk) 13:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Law Clerks

Hi BoBo, I have added a comment at the US portal under Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_United_States#Law_Clerks is it possible for you to review and comment and or if necessary highlight to the "guiding hands/heads" for the US law section(s).
Kind regards
The Original Filfi (talk) 23:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Appointments and Confirmation to the Supreme Court

Hi BoBo, Thank you for the edits at Supreme Court of the United States. I copied/borrowed some of the text (though not its final form) to update/expand the material at Appointment and confirmation to the Supreme Court of the United States. Perhaps you may want to take a look at that page as well, if you are not already doing so. Regards, Magidin (talk) 15:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, BoBo. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, BoBo. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Steve A. Matthews

The article Steve A. Matthews has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

NN lawyer, fails the GNG and WP:BIO. Only coverage in reliable, independent sources out there are a bare handful of namedrops and casual mentions. Notability tagged for over a decade.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ravenswing 18:49, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 2021

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that 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. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. MrOllie (talk) 22:39, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]