A tag has been placed on Steve Gatena, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Mosmof ( talk) 01:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Have you considered WP: Archiving your talk page rather than just 'blanking' it? 220 of ^Borg 03:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply

No, @ 220! thanks for the advice! -- JumpLike23 (talk) 03:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply

No worries. I just let mine get longer, and longer and ... . Then a 'helpful' Admin just popped in and set it up for me. They could have asked first! But, it " doesn't madda". 220 of ^Borg 03:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply

I disagree that the deletions are justified and contend they are malicious. I spent a lot of time researching Bayless' background because of all the malicious editing of his entry. Significant amounts of sourced biographical information are being deleted. There are numerous people — apparently including you — who want to eliminate pertinent biographical information about the man and diminish his accomplishments. This is done with malicious intent. I am a journalist and soon to be a nonfiction author. I have expertise in researching and sourcing biographical information. Everything I have included in Bayless' entry is factual information, but haters who cannot stand Bayless and who want to discredit him are deleting factual, pertinent information about him. As long as that continues, I will continue to replace the deleted information. To state that Bayless excelled as an amateur athlete, as a student, and as a journalist is a statement of facts. He did excel as an amateur athlete, he did excel as a student, and he did excel as a journalist. There are people who object to stating the fact he is one of the stars of First Take. It's ridiculous. He and Stephen A. Smith are the stars. He has been referred to as the star of the show by credible, independent media outlets, and he has been referred to as the star by his boss. Yet the Bayless haters cannot live with that fact. These same people object to even calling First Take a hit show, even though it is the highest rated program across all the ESPN networks with the exception of live sporting events. TV ratings prove that fact. Yet Bayless haters keep changing indisputable facts such as that? It's ridiculous and it is malicious, regardless of what you or any of the other Bayless haters claim. Stating the deletions are not malicious does not make it true. The Bayless haters are the ones out of line here, not me.

˜˜˜˜ — Preceding unsigned comment added by William D. Money ( talk • contribs) 17:55, 2 August 2015 (UTC) reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Deidre Behar 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/Deidre Behar 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 notice from the top of the article. Arthistorian1977 ( talk) 06:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC) reply

You are invited to contribute to the talk here; Talk:Bill Cosby#Main photo Thanks Selector99 ( talk) 16:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Deidre Behar

added links pointing to Robbie Jones and 21 and Over

Eric Thomas (motivational speaker)

added a link pointing to LaSalle University

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:54, 5 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Jesuit Volunteer Corps page, your edit caused a URL error ( help). ( Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:29, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply

A tag has been placed on Alan Purwin, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.
• It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. DGG ( talk ) 04:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Josie Harris 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/Josie Harris 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 notice from the top of the article. Esquivalience ^t 00:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Whiquitta Tobar 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/Whiquitta Tobar 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 notice from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 15:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC) reply

@ DGG I feel that this was not an appropriate nomination. I invite you to withdraw. Thanks. -- JumpLike23 (talk) 16:48, 27 September 2015 (UTC) reply

we will see the consensus. A little trimming would make a more defensible article. DGG ( talk ) 21:29, 27 September 2015 (UTC) reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Eric Thomas (motivational speaker) 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/Eric Thomas (motivational speaker) 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 notice from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 02:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Allen Johnson (activist) 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/Allen Johnson (activist) 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 notice from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 05:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply

see the coi noticeboard at [1] Not that all of these aren ecessarily coi, but I can't find a better place, and they all have similar problems. A centralized discussion might help. DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply

I feel really overwhelmed and uncomfortable by the way you have attacked my writing. Please do not post on my talk page again until this is resolved. Thanks. -- JumpLike23 (talk) 05:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply

I won't but the notices will post automatically. DGG ( talk ) 05:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply

JumpLike23, I wonder if you realize you just told a member of WP:Arbitration Committee not to post on your talkpage. Not the smoothest of moves. I'm sure he'll find other ways to get your attention. — Brianhe ( talk) 16:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply

@ Brianhe thank you for your insight. I probably regret that and withdraw that. DGG has helped many of my articles--although I still don't agree with his way of doing it by proposing quality articles for deletion. I still think going to the talk page or messaging me is the best approach and the recommended one. thanks again. -- JumpLike23 (talk) 18:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Sure. Going forward you might want to keep in mind that short usernames are usually taken by senior Wikipedians. Just a rule of thumb. Brianhe ( talk) 18:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply

I assume you;re permitting me to post.

In editing, all WPedians are equal. I do like to give advice based on my experience, and I also like to respond to either questions or challenges. Sometimes I'm wrong; sometimes I express myself in too emphatic a manner. I'll come back to specific issues here in a week or two--things are a little busy. DGG ( talk ) 05:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply

		The Original Barnstar
		For your excellent work on Eric Thomas (motivational speaker) and Allen Johnson (activist), both of which I consider to be exemplary works of sourced biography on lesser known persons and a credit to Wikipedia. Please don't be discouraged by the spate of deletion nominations, you are walking with the angels, it seems to me... Carrite ( talk) 12:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Carrite ( talk) Thank you!! : ) -- JumpLike23 (talk) 15:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Here is an interesting source for Allen Johnson that you might want to check out, which I've also added to the Afd. Note the excerpts in "In their Own Words." All the best! ABF99 ( talk) 18:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Orleans Public Defenders, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Brown. 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, 4 October 2015 (UTC) reply

JumpLike23

Greetings @ Jumplike23:, At Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism/Members I noticed that you added yourself to the Inactive members list. (07:03, 4 October 2015‎ Jumplike23).

I'm wondering ifyou had really intended add yourself to the above list (of active members) instead? 

This WP Catholicism members list is about half way through being manually purged, moving users with no Wikipedia updates for more than one year into the Inactive members" list below. Regards, JoeHebda ( talk)

@ JoeHebda thanks, did I fix it? -- JumpLike23 (talk) 15:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC) reply

@ JumpLike23 Yes - "You done good!" JoeHebda ( talk) 16:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Hey, thanks for hitting me up on the talk page on Mass_shooting. You were right, it needed 1) more cites and 2) to get rid of the argumentative/original research stuff. You have done a good job on that page (especially in defending it). — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Brosin ( talk • contribs) 05:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Mass shooting page, your edit caused a URL error ( help). ( Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Los Angeles County Public Defender, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page East Los Angeles. 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) 10:39, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with The Love Ranch. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a bot about this edit, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it.— ^{cyberbot I} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Eli Northrup 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/Eli Northrup 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 notice from the top of the article. Plot Spoiler ( talk) 23:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Hello, Jumplike23, and welcome to Wikiproject Catholicism! Thank you for your generous offer to help contribute. I'm sure your input will be much appreciated. I hope you enjoy contributing here and being a Catholic Project Wikipedian! If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can see a list of open tasks, and come to the Project talk page, where you can join in our discussions about Catholic-related articles. We can always use help with the project itself, and on main project pages such as Catholic Church which are sometimes subject to vandalism and poor content changes. Feel free to discuss anything on the project, but please remember to sign all your comments, and help us to make all of the many Catholicism-related articles much better. Again, welcome, and happy editing! JoeHebda ( talk) 00:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC) reply

I appreciate all your hard work to improve the Black Lives Matter page. Thank you. Scaleshombre ( talk) 16:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your message regarding BLM! My students have some great information to contribute.LH2015 13:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muedemum ( talk • contribs)

You can add them back if you want but it seems kind of indecent to list the "best" ones. See also the "Media attention" section below it. WikiOriginal-9 ( talk) 16:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Justin Brooks, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brian Banks. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your message regarding BLM! My students have some great information to contribute.LH2015 13:32, 12 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muedemum ( talk • contribs)

Hi have you heard of the preview button?-- Loomspicker ( talk) 02:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Black Lives Matter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Black Friday. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Hello, I'm Zpeopleheart. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Black Lives Matter with spurious condescending notes left in the edit summaries. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you remain civil and treat other editors with some respect. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I have restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Zpeopleheart ( talk) 06:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Zpeopleheart I dont appreciate your remarks but I will assume good faith. Good day. -- JumpLike23 (talk) 06:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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) 17:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Hey Jumplike23,

I just wanted to remind you to make sure to warn people when you revert them for vandalism. Admins won't do anything unless the person has been sufficiently warned. The vandalism warnings can be seen here Template:Uw-vandalism1. There are four of them in increasing severity that you can use for each subsequent instance of vandalism. You can also install twinkle in your preferences which makes the entire process easier. Thanks and great work with the Black Lives Matter article. You made it so much more comprehensive than it was. -- Stabila711 ( talk) 19:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Hello. Thanks for your contributions to Rahm Emanuel. The article is a good article but could use some updating for some past and current events. Not sure the "Criticisms and controversies" subsection is a good approach for a prominent local politician, of whom pretty much every move is subject to criticism or controversy, and pretty much everything that is noteworthy is noteworthy because of some kind of controversy. Can we integrate the criticisms and controversies in the mayoral tenure section, perhaps with individual subtopics there? Like WP:Criticism#Integrated_throughout_the_article, what do you think? Thanks again. Hugh ( talk) 19:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC) The most important section, the mayoral tenure, needs work. I would very much enjoy collaborating on, for example, a subsection "Police relations" or "Public schools under Emanuel" or some such. A topical division as opposed to a point-of-view division, what do you think? Thanks again. Hugh (User talk:HughD|talk]]) 20:11, 2 December 2015 (UTC) reply

I think topic discussions would be better and I am glad to help out. Good work on the article. You read my mind: I also agree the mayoral sections needs lots of expansion and work, HughD. -- JumpLike23 (talk) 20:17, 2 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Great! May I suggest an approach, we keep the "Tenure" subsection around for miscellaneous content that does not yet warrant a subtopic. Looking at the current tenure and criticism sections, I see opportunities for subsections on "Transparency," "Police-community relations," "Public education," and others. These are hot topics and we will no doubt attract contributors once we start. Where do you want to start? Let's move to article talk. Thanks again! Hugh ( talk) 20:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC) reply

There are two edits on mass shootings that you recently undid. The first removes that Japan comparison and the other removes a dated link. On of the reasons why I removed the Japan reference was the fact that it separates the CNN report which says that mass shootings occur more in the United States than anywhere in the world and the US State Department report which lists mass killings that occur world wide. If we're going to include the Japan reference we should at least move it after the State Department report to make things more organized.

I removed the older report that cites Shooting Tracker partly because it separates the Reddit article that points out Shooting Trackers flaws. I'll accept not being about to cite truth about guns considering that wikipedia is supposed to cite sources that don't take sides from the debate. It's just that I wanted to avoid having the article from jumping around to much so that it could be a bit more focused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger ( talk • contribs) 22:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC) reply

There's a few more things I found on mass shootings that I think you might be interested in looking at. The first two are articles regarding the frequency of mass shootings in the United States compared to it's population size along with mass shootings from other countries. The United States is one of the most densely populated countries on earth with a population of 320 million people which is the main factor that influences all these mass shootings.

 
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/22/barack-obama/barack-obama-correct-mass-killings-dont-happen-oth/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/12/03/obamas-inconsistent-claim-on-the-frequency-of-mass-shootings-in-the-u-s-compared-to-other-countries/

Compared with India which has a population of 1.2 billion I believe that India has more mass shootings because of it's population size, but since India's homicide rate is only 3.5 where the United States is 4.5.

The Crime Prevention Center is where I discovered the US State Department report on mass killings around the world. I understand that Wikipedia isn't supposed to accept sources that side with either side of the debate, but much of the statistics could be used to create a list on the frequency of attacks. Sadly I don't know how to make a group on Wikipedia. http://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/comparing-death-rates-from-mass-public-shootings-in-the-us-and-europe/ While the State Department's report only focus's on terrorism, it proves that the United States doesn't have more mass shootings than any other country. Part of the problem is that in many countries mass shootings tend to go unnoticed due to ineffective law enforcement lack of a definition on a mass shooting. As a result I would recommend either removing the CNN report source that states the United States has the most mass shootings or show that most countries themselves don't even report mass shootings.

Aside from that I also found some articles from politifact on Mass Shooting Tracker that you might be interested in reading. http://www.politifact.com/rhode-island/statements/2015/nov/01/david-cicilline/david-cicilline-mixes-shooting-data-call-stronger-/ http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2015/oct/08/debbie-wasserman-schultz/how-many-americans-have-been-killed-mass-shootings/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger ( talk • contribs) 02:13, 4 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Although i'm glad for some of the editing that you've done there is one detail that I am requesting to change. While Wikipedia lists there reports that the United States has the most mass shootings it's worth mentioning that the United States with it's well funded law enforcement is one of the few countries that actually defines a mass shooting or a mass killing. Other countries around the world tend to mistake mass shootings as multiple homicides. That being said a lot of third world countries have a bad habit of downplaying mass killings. Even in the United States information on mass shootings are hard to find.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/06/17/why-timely-reliable-data-on-mass-killings-is-hard-to-find/

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/09/24/active-shooter-incidents-rising-fbi-finds/16158921/

The US State Department report in contrast has been counting mass killings from terrorism each year marking incidents where 10 or more were killed with 353 in 2007, 234 in 2008, 236 in 2009, and 193 in 2010, and 193 in 2011. I know i'm sounding like a broken record by mentioning this, but i'm not asking for you to include the per capital rate of mass shootings that the Crime Prevention Center uses since I know your more against using sources that side with either side of the debate. However in order to balance out the information on Wikipedia's mass shooting page I believe that it might help to include the State Department report alongside the reports that the US has the most mass shootings. This will give readers the choice of two perspectives and bring this page up to Wikipedia standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger ( talk • contribs) 03:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Graylandertagger Thank you for your thoughtful discussion of this topic. I added one of the sources. Can you tell me in which section or new section you would put the other articles. I don't really like the pew research one because the article isn't actually about the difficulty of counting these things. -- JumpLike23 (talk) 07:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC) reply

I recommend adding it to the United States frequency section to give people a brighter picture. I still recommend that we referance the US State Department report since it's rare proof that the US doesn't have the most mass shootings. The CNN report that states America has the most mass shootings, but that's only because many other countries have a bad habit of downplaying these incidents. There's very little decent information about mass shooting rates around the world since the media always focuses on frequency rather than comparing population size with how often attacks happen. Part of the key to making a good Wikipedia article to create two sides that contradict each other. This gives readers an each choice at taking either side of the debate. I know the state department report only deals in terrorism, but debunks the claim that the US has the most mass shootings. http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/195768.pdf

Also, I found a page on wikipedia you might be interesed in referancing. The media claims that after the Port Arthor Massacre in which Austrailia enacted stricter gun law the country never had a mass killing since then. The problem with this claim is that Austrailia only defines a mass killing as 5 or more people killed by a gunmen. The wikipedia page shows that there have been several mass killings(4 or more killing using any method) since then. /info/en/?search=List_of_massacres_in_Australia /info/en/?search=Childers_Palace_Backpackers_Hostel_fire /info/en/?search=Black_Saturday_bushfires#Central_Gippsland_fires /info/en/?search=Lin_family_murders /info/en/?search=Quakers_Hill,_New_South_Wales#Nursing_home_fire /info/en/?search=Cairns_child_killings

If your planning on creating a section on Austrailia be sure to include the above mention incidents.

I recently found an article on the debate over the frequency of mass shootings: http://www.npr.org/2015/12/05/458492474/how-many-mass-shootings-this-year-theres-no-consensus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger ( talk • contribs) 17:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC) reply

I have addressed your comment on that page. Mmyers1976 ( talk) 01:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Hi Jumplike23, I noticed your removal of the alumni listed on Georgetown University Law Center and the creation of the List of Georgetown University Law Center alumni. That's something that needed doing quite a while ago; thanks! If you're interested, I've been working on cleaning up the List of Georgetown University alumni and it is currently under Featured List nomination (the nomination page can be found here). Should you be so inclined, I'd greatly appreciate if you could weigh in on whether the list should proceed to FL or be worked on further, especially since the end of the nomination process is approaching rather quickly. Thanks. Ergo Sum 05:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Thanks for creating InsideOUT Writers, Jumplike23!

Wikipedia editor Damibaru just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Great variety of refs!

To reply, leave a comment on Damibaru's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited InsideOUT Writers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scott Budnick. 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) 09:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eli Northrup, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mashup. 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) 10:40, 13 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Black Lives Matter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Richard Sherman. 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) 09:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Edmund D. Edelman Children's Court, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Monterey Park. 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) 10:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC) reply

I created the All lives matter article. Feel free to add to it BlackAmerican ( talk) 04:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC) reply

A tag has been placed on Defender Association of Philadelphia requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://library.temple.edu/scrc/defenders-association. 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 or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — 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 or image 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 this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. S Philbrick (Talk) 15:52, 8 September 2016 (UTC) reply

I realize that you provided a reference in your edits at Defender Association of Philadelphia but per our policy Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria you should be using as little as possible and only when rewriting in your own words would not make sense (e.g. famous quotes) (Copy from http://library.temple.edu/scrc/defenders-association) -- S Philbrick (Talk) 15:54, 8 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Hello,

I am wondering if you may be interested in working on the Homelessness page. The page is quite long and without focus. I am wondering if you can assist with creating new 'main' articles based on existing sections/content (e.g. Causes of homelessness, youth homelessness, etc.).

Let me know.

Thanks, I.am.a.qwerty ( talk) 05:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC) I.am.a.qwerty ( talk) 05:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

2016 U.S. national anthem protests

added a link pointing to Michael Thomas

The Star-Spangled Banner

added a link pointing to Michael Thomas

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from 1968 Olympics Black Power salute into The Star-Spangled Banner. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{ copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Ninja Diannaa ( Talk) 11:53, 21 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Colin Kaepernick into Black Lives Matter. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{ copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 ( talk) 21:21, 24 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Thank you for the work you're doing to improve the article. When multiple editors write an article based on current events, it tends to be repetitive and unorganized. I think you're doing a great job of bringing order to the article. Thank you. —  Malik Shabazz  ^Talk/ _Stalk 18:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC) reply

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Alan purwin.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.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot ( talk) 23:50, 2 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Black Lives Matter you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Midnightblueowl -- Midnightblueowl ( talk) 15:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC) reply

You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

-- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Hello, Jumplike23. 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

The article Black Lives Matter you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Black Lives Matter for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Midnightblueowl -- Midnightblueowl ( talk) 23:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC) reply

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thank you for your hard work and persistence in getting Black Lives Matter promoted to Good Article status! —  Malik Shabazz  Talk/ Stalk 02:06, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Hi, I wanted to reach out to you regarding a title change discussion in Joaquín Guzmán's talk page. You were involved in a previous change there in 2015. I'd love to read your input. Thank you! ComputerJA ( ☎ • ✎) 15:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Hi Jumplike23, I see you are a participant in WikiProject Law interested in criminal law. Can you look over a simple edit request I posted at Marsy's Law last month or point me in the right place? The request asks editors to include recently enacted Marsy's Laws in Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota. I have a conflict of interest that is fully disclosed on the Marsy's Law Talk page and I will not edit the page myself. Instead, I have worked with others in the past to update Marsy's Law and created Marsy's Law (Illinois) through WP:AfC. Thank you. JulieMSG ( talk) 23:00, 14 February 2017 (UTC) reply

A tag has been placed on Steve Gatena, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for Deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discusion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Paul McDonald ( talk) 21:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC) reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Steve Gatena 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/Steve Gatena (4th 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 notice from the top of the article. Paul McDonald ( talk) 16:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Your restructure of the Publix page is most appreciated! Thank you for helping to clean it up. Spineas ( talk) 19:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Darren Berkovitz 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/Darren Berkovitz 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 notice from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 2 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Thanks for creating Hills Beach, Jumplike23!

Wikipedia editor Boleyn just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thanks for taking the time and trouble to create this - it's appreciated. It's now been reviewed and has had some improvement tags added. If you have the time, could you look it over and see if you can help address any of the issues raised in the tags? Thanks again for your hard work.

To reply, leave a comment on Boleyn's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Boleyn ( talk) 07:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Hello, Jumplike23. 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

A tag has been placed on Shooting of Anthony Weber requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-deputy-teen-shooting-20180209-story.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — Diannaa 🍁 ( talk) 18:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC) reply

You are making edits that appear to perhaps be vandalism.

They have no edit summary - while undoing other, proper edits.

For example, are you familiar with MOS? Do you know when it is proper to replace "fifteen" with 15?

You also delete proper additions. Years of birth. Years of life. Image that fit WP's MOS requirements.

Please stop.-- 2604:2000:E016:A700:6051:4F46:43BD:6EA8 ( talk) 03:22, 3 April 2018 (UTC) reply

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Icewhiz ( talk) 15:23, 1 May 2018 (UTC) reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jovan Blacknell 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/Jovan Blacknell 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. Magnolia677 ( talk) 13:53, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Great articles! Very important information to have online. HistoryCanadiana ( talk) 17:06, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Hello, Jumplike23. 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

Thanks for creating Death of Elly Warren.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Thank you for your informative new article on the Death of Elly Warren.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Doomsdayer520}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

--- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 17:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC) reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kevin Howard 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/Kevin Howard (2nd nomination) 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. Spanneraol ( talk) 15:53, 2 March 2019 (UTC) reply

The article Evolab has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:NCOMPANY. Coverage is either in passing, or limited to primary sources (press releases) covering WP:ROUTINE business as usual activities. WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:11, 10 November 2019 (UTC) reply

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) 00:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC) reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Science Inc. 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/Science Inc. 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. DGG ( talk ) 22:28, 20 June 2020 (UTC) reply

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) 02:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Jumplike23: -- You should move your considerations regarding the David Bruck article to the talk page. You are unnecessarily deleting information. Muttnick ( talk) 02:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC) reply

• @ Muttnick: -- thanks I will do. I am going to work on trying to be more concise with the article. I probably included an excessive amount of detail. Judy Clarke is really the more notable attorney and the lead. -- JumpLike23 (talk) 02:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC) reply
  • @ Jumplike23: It looks great now! Good work. Muttnick ( talk) 15:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC) reply

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) 00:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC) reply

On 10 December 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Carol Jenkins Barnett, which you created. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai ( talk) 14:19, 10 December 2021 (UTC) reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Eli Northrup 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/Eli Northrup (2nd nomination) 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.

Mainly 01:48, 26 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Hi Jumplike23! You're receiving this notification because you were previously listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Members, but you haven't made any edits to the English Wikipedia in over 3 months.

Because of your inactivity, you have been removed from the list. If you would like to resubscribe, you can do so at any time by visiting Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Members.

Thank you! Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Hi there. I noticed that you’re a participant in the Law WikiProject, so I was wondering if you might be willing to take a look at some edits I suggested a few months ago for the Edelson article? They’ve been stuck in the Request Edits Proposal line for a while now, and since I have a conflict of interest I can’t make the changes myself. Thanks! Mtd6596 ( talk) 20:53, 19 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Hello, Jumplike23,

Thank you for creating Bring Our Families Home.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Please address the issues in red in the citations. These are generally due to incorrect syntax or missing elements from a citation template.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Kudpung}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 13:40, 22 October 2022 (UTC) reply

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) 01:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Zack Sekuler 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/Zack Sekuler 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 until the discussion has finished.

Oaktree b ( talk) 15:30, 20 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply