User talk:Pacificus

Hello, Pacificus! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 13:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Regarding edits to Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge debate

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Pacificus! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule \bmembers\.aol\.com\/.+, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links guidelines for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! AntiSpamBot 03:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

June 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Cesar Romero has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Tiggerjay (talk) 05:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Pacificus, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! IronDuke 15:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paleoconservatives

You've been adding categories to articles that don't mention or have sources for their inclusion, such as Lester Maddox. Can you please review your work and make sure that the category is supported in each instance? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto for Roy Moore. Unless you can find sources for these categorizations please stop adding them. I'll follow your edits tommorrow and removed unsourced categories. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In most of these cases in which I have added the individuals to the Category:Paleoconservatives, the basis for that characterization is inherent, within the article. It might not use the word "paleoconservative" (that is a rarely-used term, in the general discourse, and most people don't know what it means...) but if one reads the information already in those articles, regarding each persons' political viewpoints, their perspectives, and their public-policy actions, he/she can see that the basis is there.Pacificus (talk) 07:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't appear to be familiar with one of Wikipedia's foundatoinal policies, "no original research". An aspect of that policy is WP:SYNTH, which says that we can't make determinations on our own. If we don't have a reliable source that says Lester Maddox was paleoconservative, then we should not decide that he was one on our own. I'll give you some more time, but unsupported categories should not be added. It's no different from adding a sentence to the article saying that the subject is a paleoconservative. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per my comments above, I've removed the category from articles where there was no assertion that the subjects are or were paleoconservatives. You're welcome to add them back once the articles have sources that call them that. While I was at it, I also deleted some redundant categories you'd added to the chairmen of the College Republicans. Since all chairmen were CR members there's no need to have both categories. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also,I see you've made many additions to List of paleoconservative organizations, yet there are no sources for that list either. Can you add some so they don't all get deleted? Thanks. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for Image:Tony Snow with UIS College Republicans.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Tony Snow with UIS College Republicans.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 10:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the image you upload, Image:Tony Snow with UIS College Republicans.jpg, to comply with WP:FAIRUSE. Thanks for adding it to the College Republicans article. --Dr. Ivo Shandor (talk) 03:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Anti-immigrant hate group"

Pacificus, the term used in article on Sierra Club is NPOV and is an official, published designation by the Southern Poverty Law Center which is recognized by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. When the FBI is invistigating a suspected hate crime, and wishes to know who is associated with whom in the white supremicist community, it collaborates with SPLC and uses their "social networking" research to develop leads. SPLC has identified both these groups as "anti-immigrant hate groups" and until recently there were refs to sources listed for them on the Sierra Club article. Many Sierra Club members think it important for others to know that these groups attempted to "take over" the leadership of Sierra Club in 2004. In my opinion, it is not appropriate to "sanitize" this article in this manner. The term is appropriate in this context. Please don't revert again or I will report it. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 19:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am in the process of addressing this issue, on the talk page of the Sierra Club article. The Southern Poverty Law Center is itself a very-controversial organization (some of that is addressed in its article), and the FBI has nothing whatsoever to do with the Sierra Club immigration controversy, and has taken no position on that matter. Furthermore, as far as I know, the Diversity Alliance for a Sustainable America has never been designated, even by the SPLC, as an "anti-immigrant hate group" - That pro-immigration reduction organization's leadership consists largely of immigrants and minorities, and the 2004 Sierra Club candidate who is on the D.A.S.A. board is distinguished civil rights leader Frank Morris, Sr., the former Executive Director of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation. Furthermore, this "take over" was orchestrated by incumbent members of the Sierra Club Board of Directors, such as Captain Paul Watson. The talk page will soon be updated, and I may start an NPOV or Accuracy discussion as well, if need be.

Please do not issue any more threats, for something like this. This is a matter that should be resolved without needing to resort to any of that. Pacificus (talk) 05:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, is it your intention to defend white supremicists and trash everyone and everything that reveals the truth about their efforts? That does appear to be what you and your friends are doing, and I'm not the only one to notice. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 15:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your sophomoric smears towards myself (and other Wikipedia editors), in response to legitimate, detailed, researched, and referenced discussion-page posts, are baseless and unprofessional (some of which I addressed in my three posts in this thread) - and not just because I myself am a non-white, "first-generation" immigrant myself. These unmerited and uncivil ad hominems are also in violation of several Wikipedia policies and core principles (including Wikipedia:NPA, Wikipedia:HARASS, and Wikipedia:GOODFAITH).

Please stop doing this. As I said earlier, my contributions to Wikipedia have been done with the intent of improving and expanding this great resource. And as also mentioned before, we should be able to deal with these article-editing issues, without attacking each other personally (as was done here, and which I responded to, and which has recently been done elsewhere as well), or making false implications and assumptions about one another. Pacificus (talk) 22:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For your information, it is noted on the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard that the SPLC publication Intelligence Report which was questioned by two users "has been named at least twice by the Society of Professional Journalists in their Green Eyeshade journalism excellence awards [1] [2]" and may be used as a Reliable Source. It is also stated there that a link to an audited financial statement on the home page of the audited organization may be used as a Reliable Source. Have a nice day. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 15:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for, at least once, discussing the issue, instead of discussing the Wikipedia User raising it.

This same dialogue on this same topic, however, is right-now being held on other Wikipedia discussion pages, so it is not necessary, on my personal 'Talk' page as well.

In fact, I just discovered, via another User's response to your recent post on this Noticeboard, that this very issue has already been dealt with, and was formally "Resolved," several months ago. See here. Thanks, Pacificus (talk) 08:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Terence P. Jeffrey

A tag has been placed on Terence P. Jeffrey requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} 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. ttonyb1 (talk) 05:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All I did was copy the text from a pre-existing Wikipedia article, but in which the subject's name was misspelled, and pasted that same text into a new article, which is titled with the corrected spelling. If there is a problem with the text of the article itself, please take that up with whomever wrote it, in the first place. Thank you!

Noticing this, I've looked into the matter. It appears that the text was copied from Wikipedia, not the other way around. I've moved the misspelled article to the correct spelling. Will Beback talk 22:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

I've noticed that you've been adding unsourced statements to articles, and then adding cite requests. That's backwards. The write way is to find a source first, and then add the material from the source. That's particularly true with material related to living people. See WP:BLP. Will Beback talk 21:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Wallace (reporter)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Eric Wallace (reporter), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Eric Wallace. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Wikipedia:Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 16:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate Your Input on Hispanic American Congress

I see where you're coming from in reference to this particular article because it looks like Spanish people are grouped with Hispanics to beef up the Hispanic categories (this applies to real life groups as well). But, I disagree on the general Hispanic-American list. "Latin" is used differently than "Latino", though it means the same in Spanish. "Latino" is used for mestizos and in this country is really used interchangeably with Hispanic. Most people see Hispanics as mestizos. "Latin" refers to anyone who is of Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, or French heritage. Hispanic America has it's own page, White Hispanics have their own page. I don't know why there is no differentiation. Hispanic refers to culture from Spanish-language countries with ties to Spain. But, in terms of race, White-Hispanics who don't have native or African heritage, are just white. I don't call Spanish people White Hispanic. I call them Spaniards and white Europeans. Portuguese aren't even Hispanic, but Iberian. They don't speak Spanish. Why add the Portuguese and Italian man back. Italians aren't Hispanic either. Both of these groups definitely need to be deleted. I'd welcome your input here. --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 17:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it seems you did leave out the Portuguese and Italian men I had deleted. --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 17:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Pacificus! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created are Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to these articles, it would greatly help us with the current 139 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

Gwen Klingler - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Loleta Didrickson - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 20:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of List of African-American Republicans

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of African-American Republicans. 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of African-American Republicans. 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) 01:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Jason Plummer (politician) for deletion

The article Jason Plummer (politician) is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Plummer (politician) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. TM 00:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Paleoconservatism

Once again, don't add articles to a category unless there's a clear reason, especially when it's living people. Will Beback talk 19:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see (from the reverts) that this is in re: the Murray Rothbard and Justin Raimondo articles.

However, in the former article, "Old Right" (which is [naturally!] in "Category:Paleoconservatism") is mentioned, multiple times, with Rothbard called an "exemplar of the Old Right." Paleoconservatism is also mentioned, several times.

In the latter article, "paleoconservative" is mentioned once (though not in direct reference to Raimondo), and the "Old Right" & "American Right" are also discussed.

If the Category was named "Paleoconservatives", then it would be debatable, whether inclusion there constituted WP:SYNTHESIS. But, as the category is "Paleoconservatism", a philosophy which is clearly discussed, in both men's articles, I think they do warrant inclusion.

But this is a not a topic to be debating over; either way is fine, with me. Pacificus (talk) 03:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find a single mention of Paleoconservatism in Murray Rothbard. Maybe there should be, but there isn't. Where "Old Right" is a synonym isn't quite clear. Anyway, if the article say that the subjects belong to the PC wing then we can add the categories, but we shouldn't add it otherwise. Will Beback talk 03:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept this invite to join the Conservatism WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to conservatism broadly construed.
Lionel (talk) 02:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Adaptations of works by Edmond Rostand

Category:Adaptations of works by Edmond Rostand, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 15:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Wayne Rosenthal (politician)

The article Wayne Rosenthal (politician) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No real assertion of notability

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. Will Beback talk 06:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Jeffrey

I hope you don't mind, I added your draft to the WikiProject Conservatism Incubator--our members may be able to help out.– Lionel ^(talk) 07:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:Tony Snow with UIS College Republicans.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Tony Snow with UIS College Republicans.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. 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 any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Christina Jeffrey concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Christina Jeffrey, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 02:10, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Christina Jeffrey

Hello Pacificus. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Christina Jeffrey".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Christina Jeffrey}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 08:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Jamiel Shaw.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Jamiel Shaw.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 04:05, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jamiel Shaw.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Jamiel Shaw.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited David Boudia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thomas Nelson. 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) 10:17, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Pacificus. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Pacificus. 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, Pacificus. 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]

Discretionary sanctions alert for articles and content relating to post-1932 American politics and articles relating to living or recently deceased people

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 09:06, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I stumbled into that page when someone in a discussion asserted that no lists have been compiled of illegal immigrants to the U.S. who have committed crimes.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:21, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

hello

Since you're on the history of Nicolle Wallace, thre are some request for comments on her talk page. Thought you might want to weigh in when you have time. The top one is at: Talk:Nicolle_Wallace#Rfc:_Should_how_she_found_out_she_was_let_go_from_the_View_be_included?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImUglyButPrettyUgly (talk • contribs) 11:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]