User talk:Syntacticus

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome[edit]

Hello, Syntacticus, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!

Ah-hah! I got to welcome you twice!

That's a cool username, by the way. Cheers, CWC(talk) 11:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Chris. I thought it was an appropriate nom de plume. Syntacticus 04:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

July 2008[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Barack Obama, but we regretfully cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you. I have been editing entries for a long time and am aware of the rules. You appear to have jumped the gun: I am not finished this edit yet. Best. Syntacticus (talk) 02:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions, including your edits to Barack Obama. However, please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not be libelous. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article, or any other Wikipedia page, must include proper sources. Your edits cited a reference that cannot be considered a reliable source by any conceivable measure. Please discuss additions of a contentious nature on Talk:Barack Obama before making them. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

November 2008[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 17:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gamaliel: I wish you and others would stop welcoming me to Wikipedia. I've been on it for 2 years, I think. Although I may not be the most active Wikipedian, I have at least a passing familiarity with the rules. Don't patronize me. Syntacticus (talk) 06:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Syntacticus, you're absolutely right of course, but we must be extremely, extremely careful about impugning the motives of this particular group of editors. They are well-organized off-Wiki, there are a lot of them, the administrators are friendly to them, and they have a standing reservation at WP:ANI to file complaints and get us blocked and topic banned. Be extremely polite and use Wikipedia policies against them. Feel free to email me at any time. Kossack4Truth (talk) 18:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you tell me where this off-Wiki conspiracy is located? I'd like to sign up. Thanks. Gamaliel (talk) 18:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course you would. That's why you've been identified as one of the admins who have a left-wing bias, Gamaliel. By the way, did you notice that Peter Roskam won re-election? Kossack4Truth (talk) 18:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Been identified"? Oh, am I on a blacklist at the National Review now? Please don't use talk pages to promote your conspiracy theories. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 18:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
National Review? No, of course not. Wikipedia Review? Perhaps. Kossack4Truth (talk) 18:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia review? Well that would explain the conspiracy theories. Which intelligence agency do I work for? I need to know where to get reimbursed for my expenses. Gamaliel (talk) 19:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gamaliel, looking at your talk page would indicate that you are highly bias to the left (see the nice picture shrine of the "THE ONE" Obama on you talk page) and you are rude and condescending with a penchant to bully and intimidate any one to calling you to task. You respond to reasonable questions you don't like with name calling, insults and censorship and banning, Gamaliel you a bold face hypocrite and a coward. Gamaliel,your insults are indicative of the juvenile attitude you have; the petty and vindictiveness which makes you unfit in any role that requires even handed oversight. Gamalie is an abomination to the concepts of fairness, honesty, and neutrality. If jimbo reads these things, he should realize this particular admin is a very bad apple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.222.58.0 (talk) 18:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelly Craighead[edit]

FYI: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelly Craighead. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tag at ACORN[edit]

My concerns have be remedied at the article, and I believe that my remaining concerns can be worked out via the talk page. It has been 24 hours since you have edited the article, so if you want to list your concerns, do it soon. The others have a right to have the tag removed if they don't get solid reasons to keep it. I promise you that a reasonable request, reasonably stated will get heard better, with more likelihood of acceptance than angry ones. I have a wierd attraction to controversial topics, but i have found that I have been able to make edits by being reasonable that I would have never been able to get otherwise. you can too if you don't alienate everyone. I know it is hard sometimes, and we all loose it sometimes, but I have had productive discussions with all but one of the editors there ( can't like everyone, can you?).Die4Dixie (talk) 08:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check User[edit]

You are mentioned here: [[1]]Bali ultimate (talk) 18:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

December 2008[edit]

This edit,[2] to Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, following two other reversions of the same material,[3][4] is disruptive and violates a number of Wikipedia policies: WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:EW, etc. You have reverted material four times in the article within a few hours, (the other one here[5]) so it is a likely WP:3RR violation. You have been warned about WP:COI edits that may also be a WP:SOCK violation. In addition, if it turns out you are associated with Capital Research Center it is a WP:COI problem as well. You have also been engaging in tendentious editing at Southern Poverty Law Center. I will revert the edits as disruptive if they have not been already. Do not repeat these edits or you will likely be blocked at least temporarily by an administrator from further editing to avoid disruption. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a different edit on different subjects and so it does not run afoul of any rules of which I am aware. The Cloward-Piven Strategy material is new and well substantiated. I have reverted different material in an effort to back up my neutrality tag and have discussed same on the ACORN talk page, which is as I understand it, is the correct way to go. I am not being disruptive. I am being highly transparent and explaining my actions as I go. YOU ARE BEING DISRUPTIVE by zapping whatever I do without any apparent regard for fairness. As for COI, I have said that allegation is false. Can you prove otherwise? In the whole wide world it is not surprising that multiple editors have common interests. Syntacticus (talk) 07:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a point of order, WP:3RR does not require all the reverts to be of the same material. I warned rather than filing a report so you would have a chance to review the policy. A number of editors have tried to caution you about this. If you have a disputed edit and you are not a COI editor you should discuss it civilly and collaboratively on the article talk page and try to seek consensus, not edit war to get your edits in. Wikidemon (talk) 08:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have discussed it civilly but you won't even allow the neutrality tag to stand. This is not civil behavior on your part and I think you can imagine why it might upset me. I suggest, respectfully, that you are edit warring, not me. I have asked you to explain why Capital Research Center research should be excluded and you refuse even to engage in a discussion of the topic. You simply say it's partisan and bogus without providing any proof whatsoever. Again, I ask you to provide evidence why the think tank's research should not be allowed on Wikipedia. This discussion is long overdue. Syntacticus (talk) 08:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second caution[edit]

Please stop edit warring to insert disputed content into the encyclopedia. These two edits[6][7] insert a WP:BLP violation by repeating scandalous allegations from an unreliable source. In addition, they continue to promote the position of the Capital Research Center, which you seem to be affiliated with, and your edit summary accusing another editor of "bad faith" is a WP:AGF violation. Stop this, or you will likely be blocked from further editing the encyclopedia. Wikidemon (talk) 09:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD[edit]

An article you recently created has been listed for a deletion discussion. [[8]]Bali ultimate (talk) 13:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removing AfD tags is against policy. Don't do it again.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Mediation[edit]

I saw your message on my talk page, but am unable to find the request at mediation. If you could give me a link , I'd be pleased as I would like to see this resolved for you and believe you should be entitled to be heard on it.Die4Dixie (talk) 02:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Not sure what to tell you. There were so many blanks to fill in on the form. Working on it. Syntacticus (talk) 02:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Understand that I would ( and do often) object to things that are left leaning and biased. I ( who am sympathetic but not in agreement with you) think you might want to step back for a minute and figure what will best get your goals met. Pissing contests on the talk pages won't help your cause. All they have to do is not accept your request and it will never get heard. Piss them off and they will never accept. Vicious cycle. Ease up a little, take it easy . This project doesn't have to be built in one day.Die4Dixie (talk) 03:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your concern but am I just supposed to sit back and take all the abuse and invective hurled at me? They're already pissed off and I suspect were that way from the moment they were born. I have requested mediation: is that not the correct step to take? Syntacticus (talk) 03:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, but we cannot make them accept mediation.[9] ( see random Stuff)Building relationships here sometimes takes some time, and we all have rough patches. Approach Wikidemon ( who used to be Wikidemo) and talk to him without name calling, apologize for the misunderstanding which doesn't mean you are sorry, but rather you are sorry for the sad state of affairs as they stand. You will find him to be fairly reasonable when approached this way. Everyone is difficult when things degenerate to what we have. Die4Dixie (talk) 03:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your concern here,[10] I recently learned myself that you aren't supposed to ask questions, argue, etc., on the "request" part of the request for mediation because the mediators might give up and decide that the parties are not ready. It's best to keep your comments within the "accept" or "reject" section, and handle anything more complicated than that on the talk page of the request. Once mediation opens it is a lot more flexible and free-form, but still it's best to stick to content matters that the mediators can help negotiate, not editor behavior problems that are supposed to be handled somewhere else. I'm no expert but that's what I surmise. You might want to move your comments to the talk page for that reason, or else try to make peace enough that everyone will sit down and start talking about the article instead of each other. I hope this helps. Wikidemon (talk) 07:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's all bewildering, like a Kafka novel. Surprisingly bureaucratic. Must go to bed now. Thanks and good night. Syntacticus (talk) 07:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ANI[edit]

A user who has attempted to say you are Vadum has been the subject of an ANI report by myself. This si a violation of WP policy , and a serious one.Die4Dixie (talk) 23:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the heads up but I'm not sure I follow you completely. I saw that but wasn't aware it's against the rules to try to identify an editor. Although I've been on Wikipedia since 2006 I've never taken a dispute as far as I have with the ACORN article and it has never been as nasty as this. Things like the User Check process were previously unknown to me (and I'm still not sure I understand it fully). What happens now? Syntacticus (talk) 06:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outing is expressly prohibited and speculation about the identity of a user is also forbidden and a premanent blockable offense. Unfortunately, you have made few friends, so Admins might be reluctant to act appropriately in your case. You need do nothing but watch. Comment if you feel like it, or just let it go. Yhe user in question also nominated one of the article that you created for deletion, gaming the system because of disputes with you elsewhere to cause you grief and make you do the work of defending it. This triple with his refusal to enter mediation would show that he has a personal problem with you and might need to pick some other part of the project to work on, but that is just my opinion.Die4Dixie (talk) 06:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks again. Where might I find the WP policy on outing? I'd never heard of it before, though I suppose it makes sense. I don't think I have to do a lot of work to defend the Cloward-Piven Strategy article you're referring to but maybe I should do something. Syntacticus (talk) 06:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[11]. The whole guideline applies here as his intention is to harrass you.Die4Dixie (talk) 06:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, WP:OUTING (if you hear of a policy or common idea, try typing it in all uppercase like that and chances are somebody has created a shortcut). It is one of the most serious policy violations on Wikipedia. I'll take a look with an open mind about what's going on. Cheers, Wikidemon (talk) 07:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now look at that Syntacticus. You have an opportunity to change the dynamics here and build some bridges. Because I have brought this to your attention does not mean I condoen everything that has been going on on ACORN. You should really step back and examine this whole situation and see if there is any thing to take away from it. Wikidemon didn't say he would agree with me, but that he would look into it, which is all anyone can askDie4Dixie (talk) 07:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Thanks to both of you then. Syntacticus (talk) 07:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

THe check user allows an admin with the check user priveledges to see the IP addresses that a user has edited from. A check user could reveal that I edit from two Ip addresses, or that I user my id and make an edit, and then log out to agree with myself in a content dispute doing the agreement from an anon IP. It is a way to make sure that users don't abuse the consensus building dynamic. If you are associated, or have ever edited form a computer owned by Capital research, I do urge you to reveal that up front. I hate to look stupid after I've gone to bat for you. If you do, that's ok. And it doesn't mean that you can't edit the articles in question, but it means that your edits will have to pass a certain muster for POV issues.Die4Dixie (talk) 07:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it's true I urge you to come clean, then make more friends around here. That doesn't mean revealing anything you don't want to reveal, just being straightforward about things. Wikipedia gives second and third and fourth chances to people who get off on the wrong foot as long as they're sincere and trying. In one of my proudest moments I caught a high-up at American Apparel editing their articles to downplay reports of some very weird sexual behavior within the company. Once we cleared the air we got things in order to everyone's satisfaction. If it's just a coincidence, mistake, false allegation, or something explainable (e.g. you're a friend of someone who happened to be in the office or using someone else's computer), it's best to clear the air on that too. I can't speak for everyone here but personally I would be happy to be Wikipedia friends with anyone from anywhere. I've had a very interesting if slight Wikipedia interaction with the real-world Ted Frank, for example. Wikidemon (talk) 08:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have nothing to confess. I will try to be more polite in my dealings with other editors. Thanks. Syntacticus (talk) 04:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough - I'll look forward to editing the encyclopedia with you in the future. And knock on wood, we won't call each other any more names.... Cheers, Wikidemon (talk) 11:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation not accepted[edit]

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now.
For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite
10:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters violated WP:OUTING[edit]

{{helpme}} Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters has violated WP:OUTING after being warned about same. He should be blocked permanently. Have I followed the correct procedure by reporting this here: [[12]]?. Syntacticus (talk) 23:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ACORN[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

Just a friendly reminder.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 13:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you an admin? Why didn't you give a warning to Bali ultimate whose behavior was the same: [[13]]? Syntacticus (talk) 02:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, Syntacticus, I'm not an admin (other wise my user page would disclose this). The "warning" [your words, not mine] was as I said a "friendly reminder" to let you know, that you can be blocked by this rule. I wasn't sure if you're aware of this but your response proves me right so in the future try to keep this rule in mind when you revert. And no, I didn't give this "warning" (as you call it) to Bali Ultimate since he is aware of this 3 revert rule (as you should and now I now you where before my last edit) and wasn't even close to it. I don't have double standards so I checked.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No one is blocked for 3RR until they've been warned. One warning is usually considered sufficient. I note that you were warned once before, on this page, back in July. Don't expect further warnings.   Will Beback  talk  03:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • By my count Bali had the same number of reverts in that time period. But nothing happened to him. Double standard. Syntacticus (talk) 03:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please point them out to me.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you look at the edit history for ACORN you see that Bali reverted me at least twice in the same period of time. Maybe it wasn't obvious because they weren't straight reverts. Little bits here and there kept getting changed along the way and the "undo" button wasn't used by him. Syntacticus (talk) 04:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"twice" is not close to WP:3RR. You should read this simple rule and stay familiar with it. It is very simple as you should know. Below I summarized what I see in that time period (and give a da** about who is right or wrong or whatever):
Bali's edits in that time period:
1st - left your edit and edited it = no rv.
2nd - rmd. "daily kos"-link. Blogs are not a reliable sorce.
3rd - converted "youtube hotlink" into a ref (which you're capable to do so by yourself as I saw from earlier edits from you way back in summer).
4th - correcting of misnaming of "acorn's pac" to "Acorn Votes".
5th - (edit summary): "removes reduncancy on acorn votes/pac; was in article up above all along".
6th - removes "acorn affiliate" which is not' sourced.
7 th - undo of your undo of the same (and still unsourced).
Which one's do you consider close to a WP:3rr violation?
Waiting for a response, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 04:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you think there has been a violation of 3RR then you can file a notice at WP:3RRN.   Will Beback  talk  04:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There wasn't. Neither by him/her nor by some one else, but s/he was at 3rr and I tried to be nice and gave a courtesy "warning" so s/he doesn't go over (3rr) and get blocked. But it seems like the editor didn't take it that way.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 04:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I play by the rules but if other editors don't or just dismiss them I couldn't care less. They might get "hurt" not me.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 04:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see you're still there commenting but not replying besides drifting to your personal opinion at another talk page and not replying to any question that doesn't fit your "needs". Bye.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 05:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see that Wikipedia is chuck full of conspiracy theorists. Actually, I dealt with something else, got tired, and then went to bed. If you're going to give me attitude, I'm not going to bother responding. Bye. Syntacticus (talk) 05:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ayn Rand[edit]

Hi, I've filed an RfM on Ayn Rand, including as parties only those who've recently edited the article. However, as you've commented on talk, you might want to be involved too. If so, please add your name to the list of parties at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ayn Rand. Cheers, SlimVirgin talk|contribs 02:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Arbitration Request[edit]

A request for arbitration has been filed with the Arbitration Committee that lists you as a party. The Arbitration Committee requires that all parties listed in an arbitration must be notified of the aribtration. You can review the request at [14]. If you are unfamiliar with arbitration on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Arbitration. Idag (talk) 22:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand[edit]

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 00:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ayn Rand arbitration evidence[edit]

Please make note of the message posted on the evidence talk page regarding the need for supporting evidence. This is a general courtesy note being left for all editors who have submitted evidence in the case. Be well, --Vassyana (talk) 07:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ayn Rand arbitration[edit]

This is a courtesy note to all editors who have submitted evidence. Some contributions to the evidence page have been moved to the evidence talk page, per the prior notice given. General comments, observations, analysis and so forth should be posted to the evidence talk page and workshop pages. Main evidence page contributions need to be supported by linked evidence. Material moved to, or posted on, the arbitration case talk pages will still be noted and taken into account by the arbitrators.

Some portions of evidence moved to the talk page may be appropriate for the main evidence page. In the process of moving material, keeping some material on the main evidence page would have required rewriting the evidence, taking bits clumsily out of context, or otherwise deeply affecting the presentation. Editors should feel free to rewrite and reintroduce such evidence (with supporting links) to the evidence page.

Some submissions remaining on the evidence page still require further supporting evidence. For example, claims about broader pattern of behavior need to be supported by comparable evidence. A paucity of diffs, links only showing some mild infractions, or otherwise weak evidence may result in your assertions being granted much less weight.

I encourage all parties to finalize their evidence and focus on the workshop over the next few days as the case moves towards resolution. If you have any comments, questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. Vassyana (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand[edit]

The above-linked Arbitration case has been closed and the final decision published.

In the event that any user mentioned by name in this decision engages in further disruptive editing on Ayn Rand or any related article or page (one year from the date of this decision or one year from the expiration of any topic ban applied to the user in this decision, whichever is later), the user may be banned from that page or from the entire topic of Ayn Rand for an appropriate length of time by any uninvolved administrator or have any other remedy reasonably tailored to the circumstances imposed, such as a revert limitation. Similarly, an uninvolved administrator may impose a topic ban, revert limitation, or other appropriate sanction against any other editor who edits Ayn Rand or related articles or pages disruptively, provided that a warning has first been given with a link to this decision.

Both experienced and new editors on articles related to Ayn Rand are cautioned that this topic has previously been the subject of disruptive editing by both admirers and critics of Rand's writings and philosophy. Editors are reminded that when working on highly contentious topics like this one, it is all the more important that all editors adhere to fundamental Wikipedia policies. They are encouraged to make use of the dispute resolution process, including mediation assistance from Mediation Cabal or the Mediation Committee, in connection with any ongoing disputes or when serious disputes arise that cannot be resolved through the ordinary editing process.

For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 03:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Kelly Craighead for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kelly Craighead is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelly Craighead (2nd nomination) 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 high-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. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Cloward–Piven strategy for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cloward–Piven strategy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cloward–Piven strategy until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of John Berlau for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article John Berlau is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Berlau until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Syntacticus&oldid=1142790044"