User talk:Wikipedialuva/Archives/2023/January

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Wikipedialuva. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hello, Wikipedialuva/Archives/2023/January, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• If you haven't already, drop by the New user log and tell others a bit about yourself.
• Always sign your posts on talk pages! That way, others will know who left which comments.
• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• Simplified Ruleset
• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• Wikipedia Glossary

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Though we all make mistakes, here is what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Enjoy your stay with Wikipedia!

Emersoni 23:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Toby Cook has been proposed for deletion. Please review WP:BIO has been proposed for deletion. NickelShoe 06:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

New users cannot file RfAs. — nathanrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 15:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• New users can file RfAs. RfAs from inexperienced users are just highly unlikely to succeed. --Durin 03:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

You have recently re-created the article Ananta Das Goswami, which was deleted in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policies. Please do not re-create the article. If you disagree with the article's deletion, you may ask for a deletion review. ... discospinster _talk 23:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship as to why your RFA is malformed.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Wikipedialuva, I'm sorry to inform you that I've closed your request for adminship early because it was unlikely to succeed. For users to be granted admin status, they have to show that they are trusted members of the community. Individual editors each have their own standards for adminship candidates, but here are a few tips that may help you pass the next time round:

• Wait a bit longer before your next request. Many Wikipedians think that the length of time that users should be active on the project to get a firm grasp of all the policies and guidelines is roughly 3 months.
• Try to make some more edits. Administrators need to show they have a thorough understanding of policy, so it would be a good idea for you to contribute in wikipedia space, article space and talk space to show you can communicate with others.

You may wish to take a look at the admin coaching program, which would allow you to have your own coach who could personally direct you along the right path, or consider an editor review, allowing other users to comment on your edits and give you ways to improve. The guide to requests for adminship provides further considerations to make before applying again. Let me thank you for your contributions so far, and if you follow the above advice, there is no reason why you can not have a successful RfA in the future. Daniel 11:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of Christian denominational positions on homosexuality may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

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) 13:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Wikipedialuva. 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)

Hello, Wikipedialuva. 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)

Hello, Wikipedialuva. 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)

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Cox College (Springfield, Missouri) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Cox College (Springfield, Missouri), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KylieTastic (talk) 18:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Wikipedialuva! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! KylieTastic (talk) 18:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Cox College (Springfield, Missouri), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your work on this article. Unfortunately, some of the previous text that you restored was a copyright violation (though it was not identified at the time), originally added by the IP 8.33.29.132. I've removed the affected text from the article. It is a copy of [1], for reference. DanCherek (talk) 03:53, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

@DanCherek: Thank you for discovering this and letting me know, I had no idea that the content originally posted by IP 8.33.29.132 was from that saintlukescollege.edu. I still feel like the history of the school is important to the article; would you have any objections to me rewriting the material and adding it? Wikipedialuva (talk) 04:06, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Please do, and thank you for being willing to re-write it in your own words – that's partly why I linked the source above. I don't have the time to do so myself, so I'm happy to hear that you're willing. DanCherek (talk) 04:08, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

I went ahead and rewrote the history section and provided an updated reference. Let me know if there is anything else I need to do for the article or if anything I wrote needs to be changed. Thanks again for letting me know. Wikipedialuva (talk) 07:05, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

It looks great to me from a copyright perspective (you might want to add a citation to the first paragraph in the History section though ). The copyright template at the top of the article will be removed soon, after an administrator redacts the past infringing revisions. Thanks again for rewriting the content! DanCherek (talk) 07:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Would appreciate it if you would explain why you undid my edit on List of Emmerdale characters (2021). Many thanks Blanchey (talk) 23:12, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Update: just seen it was an accident, never mind! Blanchey (talk) 23:15, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I clicked the button in Twinkle.Wikipedialuva (talk) 23:47, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Not to worry, and I apologise if I seemed confrontational in the first message, I should have noticed you undoing it saying it was an accident before making a comment. Blanchey (talk) 09:08, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Wikipedialuva! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Is there an expiration on final vandalism warnings?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread. See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry about the revert mixup. Saw the vandalism in my watchlist but didn't realise it had already been done. By the time I hit undo to my edit you had already re-reverted it. Thanks JabberJaw (talk) 08:21, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

No worries! I've done it myself before. Wikipedialuva (talk) 08:22, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Look up modelled or modeled in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

I'm not going to challenge the uw- you gave to user:Moussêíel Guillaume-Hertóux given their subsequent behaviour but just fyi, "modelled" is correct spelling in en-uk. So it was (probably) a good faith edit. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman Hi John Maynard Friedman! I was not aware of the British spelling of this word, thanks for letting me know. After looking into it more, I agree that the user's edit probably was a good faith edit. I went ahead and deleted the warning that I left regarding this edit on the user's talk page. Once again, thanks for letting me know. Wikipedialuva (talk) 05:27, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

OTH, if you see "speling" [sic] it is (a) just wrong or (b) a literary reference to Nigel Molesworth, as any ful kno. The house always wins . --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:58, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:00, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I hope you will accept my apology for biting you in this discussion, where my frustration about the article bubbled over at the wrong person, quite inappropriately. I hope this bad behavior on my part won't discourage you from continuing to do good work on Wikipedia, and I am sincerely sorry.

Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Your edits on Thought disorder page have been reverted, due to violation of the rules regarding tolerance and equality on Wikipedia, since your edits are disrespectful towards people with intellectual disability. You must stop making destructive and unnaceptable edits or your account will be permanently banned. — 178.129.70.231 (talk) 10:21, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't mean to be condescending, but the edits I made for I Know What You Did Last Summer (TV series), I did it because I found information on the characters' names, exclusively on how their names be spelled and their last names. - 67.85.46.192 (talk) 5:34 7 October 2022 — Preceding undated comment added 21:34, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Had productive discussion with IP user on their talk page and left note on article talk page per our discussion. Wikipedialuva (talk) 02:14, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

How many times are you going too edit my page? Simplystart (talk) 07:03, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

@Simplystart: Hi Simiplystart. I was editing your talkpage to correctly format my message to you. Assuming I don't need to message you again, I don't plan on editing it anymore. Thanks! Wikipedialuva (talk) 07:10, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

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) 00:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

"In 2011, Christine O'Hearn defended Gloucester Township Public Schools against multiple claims of alleged pervasive and persistent racism."

The above is true. She defended the guilty and condemned the innocent.

In 2012, O'Hearn defended the borough of Pine Hill, New Jersey, against allegations that an employee had been sexually harassed by the mayor.

Once again, Christine O'Hearn defended the guilty and condemned the innocent.

If you study Christine O'Hearn's track record closely, you will see a leopard can not change its spots.

She's a partner at shady Brown and Connery. Their reputation speaks for itself in defending the wicked (who pays them handsomely) and condemning the poor and the innocent.

The Wiki page of Christn O'Hearn states she's A Democrat. She may try to present herself as a Democrat. But her past career record speaks for itself.

No worries. Truth will come to light about Ms. O'Hearn. If not by me by someone else.

O'Hearn is indeed a liar and a racist.

Her career path speaks for itself. Just because she was appointed a U.S. Federal District Court Judge by Biden means nothing. 🙄

There was an urgent need to fill vacancies.

The cases O'Hearn chose to defend in the past speaks to her character and unscrupulous nature.

I've been in a courtroom with this woman before in a 5-week trial. I know what she's like. I know her courtroom rhetorical theatrics. She lies and puts on a show. Letting the wicked walk free.

Truth be told: Whatever happens in the dark always comes to light. Whatever people do in secret will be shouted from the rooftops.

In America, there is no real justice. Only courtroom theatrics, rules of evidence, and ignorant jurors who will quickly believe whoever is the most convincing in their presentation. Even if it's just one big fat lie.

Lying is Christine O'Hearn's brand of truth. Epiphany Justice (talk) 07:39, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Epiphany Justice: On a purely personal level, I am in full agreement with you that Christine O'Hearn has a troubling history, was a very poor choice for the federal judiciary, and I was extremely disappointed in Biden that he nominated her to the bench. However, Wikipedia has a strict policy about maintaining a neutral point of view when editing. You can read the full policies, but essentially means "articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it." Wikipedia also has a policy that encourages avoiding contentious labels, including the term “racist … unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution”. The comments of yours that I reverted stated that she was a "racist liar” and someone “who condems (sic) the innocent and defends the guilty”. These statements appear to contain a contentious label without reliable source attribution and appear to editorialize. I did not remove the factual and neutral statement that "In 2011, Christine O'Hearn defended Gloucester Township Public Schools against multiple claims of alleged pervasive and persistent racism." You are more than free and encouraged to add factual statements like this that do not editorialize and are supported by reliable sources. Examples may include, but are not limited to, listing where she has worked, who she defended, and notable cases she has been involved with. If you have any questions or are confused about the policy, feel free to reply to this message or you can also ask for help at the Teahouse. Thanks! Wikipedialuva (talk) 03:20, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I will Cite factual information. Regarding the five-week trial, which took place at Cape May County Courthouse in 2017.

Anis vs. Woodbine Developmental Center

I reported an incident of neglect and abuse of a poor gentleman with spastic palsy. Christine O'Hearn defended WDC lying in the courtroom attacking and badgering witnesses. In the end there was no justice for the poor palsy guy in the wheelchair.

You ever see that movie "Devil's Advocate?" Christine is Satan. Karma is coming for Ms. O'Hearn. No doubt. She will get her comeuppance. Epiphany Justice (talk) 03:35, 10 December 2022 (UTC)