User talk:Highground79

Welcome!

Hello, Highground79, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! - Darwinek 10:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Ben Manski

A tag has been placed on Ben Manski, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. GreenJoe 01:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Ben Manski

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

Non-notable person. See WP:BIO or WP:POLITICIAN. Never won elective office. Places he works may be notable, he does not seem to be.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Baron Larf 22:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Better Life Party

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Better Life Party, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. 172.147.36.60 01:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Republican Party of Iowa

A tag has been placed on Republican Party of Iowa, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Corvus cornix 02:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Donoghue

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Kevin Donoghue, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 04:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template discussion

As an occasional editor to the discussion at Template:United States presidential election, 2008 your input would be appreciated at Template talk:United States presidential election, 2008#Proposal: A return to the old standards. Thank you.--S TX 04:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

United States House of Representatives elections, 2008 - complete list

Thanks for your contributions to this article! In the future, though, we should probably remove the boldening of the current incumbent's name when we update the last column for 2008, so it doesn't look like we're declaring that person the winner already. Qqqqqq (talk) 00:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Kevin Donoghue

An article that you have been involved in editing, Kevin Donoghue, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Donoghue. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Thomas.macmillan (talk) 23:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Presidential election count

		The Minor Barnstar
		For updating the vote counts for every minor 2008 presidential candidate, citing the official FEC election results. kotra (talk) 19:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These are the sort of good, factual edits that give Wikipedia value. Thanks! -kotra (talk) 19:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Jonathan Carter (politician)

I have nominated Jonathan Carter (politician), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Carter (politician). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Acebulf (talk) 01:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Party switching in the United States‎

Thanks for the clean up - it is long overdue! -- The Red Pen of Doom 06:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Michael Bloomberg not a Republican still an Independent

Thanks for correcting my mistake and adding the new information to the New York City mayoral election, 2009 article.--Josh Atkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 11:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Could you recommend a quality UK/English political/election news source website other then the BBC

Sure - I hope these links help:

In the UK they're no equivalent of the electoral college, it's just whichever candidate gets the plurality of the popular vote. Council elections occur on a county, district, and town/parish level. There's the European parliament elections too but that's separate from the national elections. Direct.gov.uk is the British government's portal, like USA.gov or America.gov I guess. --Josh Atkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 12:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again and still: "Popular vote winner in bold?"

Since you commented before or are otherwise involved, please take a look at Template talk:Infobox Election#Popular vote winner in bold?, [1].--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 04:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: This is a templated message but please see also my response to you at my talk page.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 04:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Siksay

Hey, Highground! Thanks for the note. I linked "the first" to LGBT firsts to make it consistent with other bios. See the lede in Harvey Milk (a featured article) for instance. I don't really have strong feelings about it though. So I added the link to the see also section.

The main reason I changed the wording is that "while already gay" sounds strange, as though being a Member of Parliament makes you gay and Siksay is special because he was gay before he started. Though, you are certainly right that the "in his first term" in my phrasing was strange, too. I reworded it again to use "non-incumbent". I think the new wording is clearer and more concise than the previous ones. Do you think so too? Queerudite (talk) 13:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know what you mean about non-incumbent. Challenger is the proper term, but it doesn't sound right in context. I like your suggestions. Oh, and I didn't remove info about the former gay MPs; I just reworded the sentence to make it shorter. Queerudite (talk) 18:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LÖÖÖL

What you yourself call "identified as non-notable" by "numerous" users is only identified as such by you and ONLY YOU. Closes states are of course those whose best results diverge with less than 10%. FOX, CNN and New York Times have been handling it like that. The tables had been standing in the articles for months and years, and I haven't even drawn them up. Thus, this information was identified as notable by numerous users. :) So, please behave like an adult and remember: Even if you feel like the only and biggest person on this planet, you have to share it with billions of other people. So, please define "numerous" in another way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.245.108.65 (talk) 00:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other users identifying information a non-notable (total of 4! editors, 3 other then me so it is not Only me)

2008: User:Hamiltonstone - United States presidential election, 2008 User:Timmeh - United States presidential election, 2008

2004: User:A new name 2008 - United States presidential election, 2004 User:Timmeh: United States presidential election, 2004 User:Highground79

1996: User:A new name 2008 - United States presidential election, 1996 User:Highground79 - United States presidential election, 1996

1992: User:A new name 2008 - United States presidential election, 1992 User:Highground79 - United States presidential election, 1996

1980: User:A new name 2008 - United States presidential election, 1980 User:Highground79 - United States presidential election, 1980

By previously established consensus among numerous editors (In discussion on talk pages) it has been determined that close states is defined for articles on Wikipedia as less then 5%. Wikipedia is not FOX, CNN and New York Times and a different definition has been established. Your statement that I'm the only one that has a problem with you edits is a bold face lie, and your acting like a child. Also It has been established by consensus that presidential election articles are not to include best states for candidates since that is of relevantly little significance since the US uses the electoral college. Since you have contacted several editors about their removal of your non-notable edits I must say again that you are telling a bold face lie when you say I'm the only one with a problem with your vandalism (See List above or your list of contributions when you went to other editors talk pages). I case it hasn't been made clear to you, continued addition of non-notable material that has been removed by several editors is edit waring which is considered vandalism. I will be contacting several administrators to inform then of your continued disruptive behavior and vandalism. If you feel like saving me the time go ahead and contact an administrator your self to complain about what you feel is vandalism by the several editors you have felt necessary to contact. I know that I and the other editors are in the right since this situation has happened before and the outcome reinforced the established definition and reaffirmed the non-notability of this low quality info. Highground79 (talk) 03:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gubernatorial article

Hey, no problem... I've been running around doing articles for the historical Gubernatorial elections in Maine going back all the way back to 1820:

I've gotten back to 1940 so far, and am going to try to get into the mid 1800s in the next couple of weeks. But anyway, I will be pretty heavily involved in the 2010 article as well given my interest in Maine politics and Gubernatorial elections specifically, so I'm happy to help! FreeRight (talk) 23:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Presidential Results

If you could find all of the FEC results I would gladly help put them up. --24.210.149.86 (talk) 00:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Hey. Sorry I made some mistakes, but what all you have to edit the page. I have no problem with that. One of the greatest things about wikipedia is editing other's mistakes...by the way you forgot to sign your post on my talk page.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 15:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And also please cite examples of possible bias against conservative politicians, I'm very curious to see that. I have no liberal agenda. My only agenda is to create and improve historical election articles because many people edit the recent 2006-2009 election pages very well, but the older ones still lack information, quality, etc. --Jerzeykydd (talk) 15:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently in the process of fixing all the errors on the presidential election pages. I'm getting rid of all the excessive bolding, fixing the leads, re-labeling the results, and adding the electors sections. If you have any problems or anythng please just go on my talk page before reverting anything. Thanks.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 02:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Election results bolding despite consensus

You can/should direct editors to Template talk:Infobox Election#Popular vote winner in bold? in your edit summary so if they wish they can re-discuss but cannot claim they didn't know about the existing consensus.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nebraska & Maine

The best thing to do is to explain in detail in the lead of each election article how the process works and simply put the congressional district results first in the results section. The infoboxes should be kept the same unless if you want to create 2 seperate infoboxes for Maine and 3 for Nebraska. --Jerzeykydd (talk) 19:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have figured out a solution. Look at what I did for United States presidential election in Maine, 2008. I created 1 infobox and added the congressional district results inside. The only problem is that it doesn't come out that way. I don't understand how it works so I need some help. --Jerzeykydd (talk) 03:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Labeling

I believe election articles should be distinguished between statewide, county, and congressional district. If it just say election results, it could be anything. It has to be specific. I made every presidential election article that way I am planning on keeping it that way.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 03:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't really agree with you but to avoid edit edit wars, I will accept your labeling policy of no "statewide results" for now. Sorry about the bolding, I'll try to help you to fix to the general census. Usually I don't give in so easily, but I'll let it go this time. But don't push it or I'll get pissed off because I do work very hard on improving election articles.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 00:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Please do not revert my edits until you speak to me first. I did a lot of hard work in fixing several articles. Do not continue.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 21:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Look I didn't mean to offend you. If you haven't noticed I have fixed some mistakes, as far as getting rid of the labeling of statewide results and also getting rid of excessive bolding. Over the past few days, I have been editing all of the 2008 state election pages and fixing all of my mistakes. I have also went as far as improving all the articles, including fixing the leads and even adding a section explaining the electoral college process. As soon as you read this please respond in my talk page. Thanks.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 22:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution

I'm really happy that our personal conflict is over. And thanks for the websites. Here are some things I wanted to mention about election articles:

For the lead, I like to put one paragraph for the ultra basic information, and than a second paragraph of the original in-depth results.
As for that website I like to use, Dave Liep, I will begin to replace all the references to that site with the official government website numbers. (Most of which are in 2004 election pages).
As for third parties combined in "others" I have only done that because I usually edit articles quickly and I try to finish quickly. Over the next few weeks I will revise all 2004 and 2000 presidential election pages by adding an electors section, basic lead, and replacing others with the actual third party candidates.
I like the idea of a seperate section for congressional district/county results. I will simply name the section "Results Breakdown"
Here is one problem I still have with you: I perfer to simplify the section names as small as possible. I'm OK with the main section labeled as Election Results. However, I perfer to label the subsections as By congressional district and By county. Anything wrong with that?

If there are any problems/concerns please go on my talk page so we can resolve everything before going into another edit war. Thanks.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 21:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Odd miscellaneous comment - removed from user page

Hello. Welcome to Wikipedia. Aaron aka Jabberwockgee (talk) 18:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Chelene Nightingale

A tag has been placed on Chelene Nightingale requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, 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. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ttonyb1 (talk) 00:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've declined the nomination for speedy deletion; but if you want to save this article, you need to change those unacceptable in-line external links into properly formatted citations. See WP:CITE for how that is done. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't me

You have unjustly accused me of changing the main photo on the 1928 election page. Someone else changed it, not I. You can confirm this by looking at the history. The only thing I changed was the little picture of Al Smith in the candidates gallery to match the big picture.--24.210.149.86 (talk) 03:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't me in response to my comment: Your vandalism of the United States presidential election, 1928 article Your recent change to the photo of Al Smith constitutes vandalism and are part of a pattern of edit-warring! Over a period of time you have repeatedly changed the photo to one that does not reflect the reality of 1928. The photo's in the article should be from the period in which the election took place not from way before!! Please refrain from future non-constructive edits and if you have what you believe to be a valid reason for changing the photo bring it to the talk page (there is a discussion on this matter). Continued edit-warring and vandalism may result in having your editing privileges blocked so consider this your warning. Highground79 (talk) 03:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My response to It wasn't me: YES you did vandalize the page and the history of the page proves that you knew you were committing vandalism. If you look at the edit history you changed the photo to File:AlfredESmith.png (from the Early 1920s) from File:AlfredEmanuelSmith.png (1928). When making an edit it is the responsibility of the editor to ensure that there edit is both constructive and factual. You easily could have changed the photos to ones from the correct year but you did not. The articles history clearly shows that you have changed the Al Smith photo several times to one which does not reflect the reality of 1928. Some of the rational you have stated in the past "Better picture of Smith" then when this was reverted (and it was explained why) you again claimed it was a "New picture of Smith" it was the same photo. You have repeatedly pushed the photo which is factually incorrect (you know this because it has been mentioned in the edit summary when your edits where reverted) and several editors have reverted your REPEATED vandalism (addition of incorrect photo) yet you continue to do the same thing so over and over (edit-warring). As to your complaint: "You have unjustly accused me of changing the main photo on the 1928 election page. Someone else changed it, not I. You can confirm this by looking at the history. The only thing I changed was the little picture of Al Smith in the candidates gallery to match the big picture"

I did not unjustly accuse you! The ENTIRE edit history of the article shows that you have pushed a photo that you know it not correct and you continue to do so! so while the edit history shows that you changed only the little picture of Al Smith in the candidates gallery, you knew from previous edits (which were reverted - and it was explained why) that you were changing it to a photo which does not reflect reality. The same photo which you have been edit-warring to have included as the main photo. If you did not have a history of willfully making non-constructive edits to the photo it could have been an accident but previous edits prove otherwise. So I did not unjustly accuse you, I merely called you out for the vandalism which you knowingly did to the article!!! Highground79 (talk) 04:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One little question. Who is 98.116.91.153? It's not me buddy. From the posts on this page, it is obvious you are a person no one can get along with. And you are being extremely anal about the picture that me and 98.116.91.153 propose. That picture is from 1926, a mere 2 years off from the election. Why aren't you also throwing a fit over Roosevelt's picture in the elections of 1932, 1936, 1940, and 1944. One picture used over a 12 year period! I'm surprised that has not thrown you into an epileptic fit.--24.210.149.86 (talk) 05:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect Al Smith photo

Since none of us were happy with the compromise picture, I looked high and low for a different picture of Al Smith from 1928. I finally found the perfect picture of Smith. I had known about this picture for awhile but could never find a decent copy. However, I finally found it and uploaded it. This was the picture of Smith found on most of his campaign buttons in 1928. I hope this works. I think this is by far the best picture of Al Smith.--Tilden76 (talk) 07:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this compromise picture alright with you? If it is, we need to do something about 82.16.113.24. This person keeps on changing it to the picture that got all of us fired up.--Tilden76 (talk) 18:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:82.16.113.24

I just noticed the warning you gave User:82.16.113.24 regarding his recent edits to the Bill Nelson article. This is not the first time he has made such edits, I warned within the last day regarding similar edits he made to four other articles on U.S. Senators (Mark Begich, Lisa Murkowski, Richard Shelby, and Jeff Sessions). --TommyBoy (talk) 21:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some help please

Heyy. I'm currently having a problem with Znip with the 2008 presidential election in California. The page only has one lead paragraph and has a statewide results subsection. Please help me with this conflict.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 19:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I need a third party opinion on the article regarding the presidential election in California. Please go on the talk page on the last section and share your opinion. Thanks.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 13:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so sorry I had no idea. --Jerzeykydd (talk) 22:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remember we compromised a few months ago about the results section and how county and congressional district results should be in a seperate section called Results breakdown? California is the only article in both 2004 and 2008 state results that still doesn't have the results section split.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 16:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Green Party of Nevada

A tag has been placed on Green Party of Nevada, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page 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 an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Texas elections

I perfer if it was in the middle of the page, mostly because of consistency and that the results sections is the main part of the page. Let's not start an edit war, it really isn't a big deal.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 20:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orly Taitz

There's a bot that goes around and changes fact tags to citation needed tags with dates, so I never bother. :) Woogee (talk) 18:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. :) Woogee (talk) 18:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Chelene Nightingale

I have nominated Chelene Nightingale, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chelene Nightingale. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Orange Mike | Talk 02:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

re

ok, i will check it, but plz give me some time do build the article, after i am done, we can discuss any disagreement in the talk page. thank you --Galactic Traveller (talk) 07:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Greens of Virginia

You have a previous edit on this article or Talk, so FYI: Talk:Independent Greens of Virginia#Material by editor "PonchoChet". Let's try to make the article better. -Colfer2 (talk) 20:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Green party and fundraising position

I see you are major contributor to the green party page and want to drop you a note I added a section.....it is a big long winded in the sentence...so feel free to break it up. Also for tons and tons of secondary references if you want to add them..go the super PACs page where there are about 50 you can use. Pbmaise (talk) 00:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ken Hechler, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jesse Johnson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 16:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Daniel Imperato for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Daniel Imperato 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/Daniel Imperato (3rd 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.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 21:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited United States Senate elections, 1974, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Socialist Workers Party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:05, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion: Douglas Campbell (Michigan politician)

I notice you were one of the editors who participated in the original discussion on merging the Douglas Campbell (Michigan politician) article into Michigan gubernatorial election, 2006. The consensus was "The result was Not to merge into Michigan gubernatorial election, 2006."

It was recently deleted by a PROD without an AfD. I sucessfully requested that it be restored, but it is now facing an AfD. If you are still interested in this article, you may participate in the AfD discussion here:

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Douglas_Campbell_(Michigan_politician)

--Libertyguy (talk) 06:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Wisconsin Green Party for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Wisconsin Green Party 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/Wisconsin Green Party 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. Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:27, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Green Party of New Jersey for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Green Party of New Jersey 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/Green Party of New Jersey 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. Me-123567-Me (talk) 04:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Green Party of Colorado

A tag has been placed on Green Party of Colorado, 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 "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. Me-123567-Me (talk) 17:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Green Party of Delaware

A tag has been placed on Green Party of Delaware, 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 is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. (See section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Wikipedia has standards for the minimum necessary information to be included in short articles; you can see these at Wikipedia:Stub. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
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 "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. Me-123567-Me (talk) 17:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Green Committees of Correspondence

A tag has been placed on Green Committees of Correspondence requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about 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 "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. Me-123567-Me (talk) 16:50, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Highground79. 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]

Speedy deletion nomination of South Carolina Green Party

A tag has been placed on South Carolina Green Party requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about 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 "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. Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Green Party of Pennsylvania

A tag has been placed on Green Party of Pennsylvania requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about 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 "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. Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Green Party of Colorado

A tag has been placed on Green Party of Colorado requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about 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 "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. Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Green Party of Delaware

A tag has been placed on Green Party of Delaware requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about 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 "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. Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Green Party of New Mexico

A tag has been placed on Green Party of New Mexico requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about 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 "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. Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Green Party of Virginia

A tag has been placed on Green Party of Virginia requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about 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 "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. Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Wikiproject!

Hail and well met! I am dropping you a quick note because I have created a new Wikiproject - WikiProject Green Party to help expand and improve on the vast number of Green Party articles on Wikipedia! I hope you will consider joining so we can collaborate together! Have a great day! Me-123567-Me (talk) 00:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Green Committees of Correspondence

The article Green Committees of Correspondence has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Absolutely no indication of meeting WP:GNG let alone WP:ORGDEPTH. Searches reveal nothing promising

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. AusLondonder (talk) 23:19, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Green Senatorial Campaign Committee

The article Green Senatorial Campaign Committee has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability is not inherited. Tagged for issues for some time

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. AusLondonder (talk) 23:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Rebekah Kennedy for Deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rebekah Kennedy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted, mostly based on the Notability policy for biographies of living people.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebekah Kennedy 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.

Just letting you know given that you have discussed the deletion of the page before on the talk page for this article. Redditaddict69 (talk) 03:44, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Elizabeth Arnone

A tag has been placed on Elizabeth Arnone requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about 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 "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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. User:Namiba 22:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Elizabeth Arnone for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Elizabeth Arnone 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/Elizabeth Arnone 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. User:Namiba 13:29, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Green Party of Delaware for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Green Party of Delaware 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/Green Party of Delaware 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.

Toa Nidhiki05 19:04, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Green Party of New Mexico for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Green Party of New Mexico 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/Green Party of New Mexico 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.

Toa Nidhiki05 19:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Jesse Johnson (West Virginia politician) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jesse Johnson (West Virginia politician) 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/Jesse Johnson (West Virginia politician) 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.

SecretName101 (talk) 07:24, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Nebraska Green Party

The article Nebraska Green Party has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

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. AusLondonder (talk) 14:19, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]