Hello, Syntacticus, and
welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for
your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the
New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}}
on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!
Ah-hah! I got to welcome you twice!
That's a cool username, by the way. Cheers, CWC (talk) 11:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Chris. I thought it was an appropriate nom de plume. Syntacticus 04:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to
Barack Obama, but we regretfully cannot accept
original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a
reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. --
Scjessey (
talk)
02:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. I have been editing entries for a long time and am aware of the rules. You appear to have jumped the gun: I am not finished this edit yet. Best. Syntacticus ( talk) 02:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions, including your edits to
Barack Obama. However, please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that
biographical information about living persons must not be
libelous. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article, or any other Wikipedia page, must include proper
sources. Your edits cited a reference that cannot be considered a
reliable source by any conceivable measure. Please discuss additions of a contentious nature on
Talk:Barack Obama before making them. --
Scjessey (
talk)
02:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to
attack other editors, as you did on
Talk:Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Gamaliel (
talk)
17:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Gamaliel: I wish you and others would stop welcoming me to Wikipedia. I've been on it for 2 years, I think. Although I may not be the most active Wikipedian, I have at least a passing familiarity with the rules. Don't patronize me. Syntacticus ( talk) 06:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
FYI: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelly Craighead. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
My concerns have be remedied at the article, and I believe that my remaining concerns can be worked out via the talk page. It has been 24 hours since you have edited the article, so if you want to list your concerns, do it soon. The others have a right to have the tag removed if they don't get solid reasons to keep it. I promise you that a reasonable request, reasonably stated will get heard better, with more likelihood of acceptance than angry ones. I have a wierd attraction to controversial topics, but i have found that I have been able to make edits by being reasonable that I would have never been able to get otherwise. you can too if you don't alienate everyone. I know it is hard sometimes, and we all loose it sometimes, but I have had productive discussions with all but one of the editors there ( can't like everyone, can you?). Die4Dixie ( talk) 08:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
You are mentioned here: [ [1]] Bali ultimate ( talk) 18:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
This edit, [2] to Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, following two other reversions of the same material, [3] [4] is disruptive and violates a number of Wikipedia policies: WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:EW, etc. You have reverted material four times in the article within a few hours, (the other one here [5]) so it is a likely WP:3RR violation. You have been warned about WP:COI edits that may also be a WP:SOCK violation. In addition, if it turns out you are associated with Capital Research Center it is a WP:COI problem as well. You have also been engaging in tendentious editing at Southern Poverty Law Center. I will revert the edits as disruptive if they have not been already. Do not repeat these edits or you will likely be blocked at least temporarily by an administrator from further editing to avoid disruption. - Wikidemon ( talk) 07:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Please stop edit warring to insert disputed content into the encyclopedia. These two edits [6] [7] insert a WP:BLP violation by repeating scandalous allegations from an unreliable source. In addition, they continue to promote the position of the Capital Research Center, which you seem to be affiliated with, and your edit summary accusing another editor of "bad faith" is a WP:AGF violation. Stop this, or you will likely be blocked from further editing the encyclopedia. Wikidemon ( talk) 09:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
An article you recently created has been listed for a deletion discussion. [ [8]] Bali ultimate ( talk) 13:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Removing AfD tags is against policy. Don't do it again. Bali ultimate ( talk) 02:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I saw your message on my talk page, but am unable to find the request at mediation. If you could give me a link , I'd be pleased as I would like to see this resolved for you and believe you should be entitled to be heard on it. Die4Dixie ( talk) 02:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry. Not sure what to tell you. There were so many blanks to fill in on the form. Working on it. Syntacticus ( talk) 02:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
It's all bewildering, like a Kafka novel. Surprisingly bureaucratic. Must go to bed now. Thanks and good night. Syntacticus ( talk) 07:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
A user who has attempted to say you are Vadum has been the subject of an ANI report by myself. This si a violation of WP policy , and a serious one. Die4Dixie ( talk) 23:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the heads up but I'm not sure I follow you completely. I saw that but wasn't aware it's against the rules to try to identify an editor. Although I've been on Wikipedia since 2006 I've never taken a dispute as far as I have with the ACORN article and it has never been as nasty as this. Things like the User Check process were previously unknown to me (and I'm still not sure I understand it fully). What happens now? Syntacticus ( talk) 06:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
OK. Thanks again. Where might I find the WP policy on outing? I'd never heard of it before, though I suppose it makes sense. I don't think I have to do a lot of work to defend the Cloward-Piven Strategy article you're referring to but maybe I should do something. Syntacticus ( talk) 06:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
THe check user allows an admin with the check user priveledges to see the IP addresses that a user has edited from. A check user could reveal that I edit from two Ip addresses, or that I user my id and make an edit, and then log out to agree with myself in a content dispute doing the agreement from an anon IP. It is a way to make sure that users don't abuse the consensus building dynamic. If you are associated, or have ever edited form a computer owned by Capital research, I do urge you to reveal that up front. I hate to look stupid after I've gone to bat for you. If you do, that's ok. And it doesn't mean that you can't edit the articles in question, but it means that your edits will have to pass a certain muster for POV issues. Die4Dixie ( talk) 07:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
{{helpme}}
Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters has violated
WP:OUTING after being warned about same. He should be blocked permanently. Have I followed the correct procedure by reporting this here: [
[12]]?.
Syntacticus (
talk)
23:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue
dispute resolution.
Just a friendly reminder.-- The Magnificent Clean-keeper ( talk) 13:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Are you an admin? Why didn't you give a warning to Bali ultimate whose behavior was the same: [ [13]]? Syntacticus ( talk) 02:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I've filed an RfM on Ayn Rand, including as parties only those who've recently edited the article. However, as you've commented on talk, you might want to be involved too. If so, please add your name to the list of parties at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ayn Rand. Cheers, SlimVirgin talk| contribs 02:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
A request for arbitration has been filed with the Arbitration Committee that lists you as a party. The Arbitration Committee requires that all parties listed in an arbitration must be notified of the aribtration. You can review the request at [14]. If you are unfamiliar with arbitration on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Arbitration. Idag ( talk) 22:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 00:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Please make note of the message posted on the evidence talk page regarding the need for supporting evidence. This is a general courtesy note being left for all editors who have submitted evidence in the case. Be well, -- Vassyana ( talk) 07:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
This is a courtesy note to all editors who have submitted evidence. Some contributions to the evidence page have been moved to the evidence talk page, per the prior notice given. General comments, observations, analysis and so forth should be posted to the evidence talk page and workshop pages. Main evidence page contributions need to be supported by linked evidence. Material moved to, or posted on, the arbitration case talk pages will still be noted and taken into account by the arbitrators.
Some portions of evidence moved to the talk page may be appropriate for the main evidence page. In the process of moving material, keeping some material on the main evidence page would have required rewriting the evidence, taking bits clumsily out of context, or otherwise deeply affecting the presentation. Editors should feel free to rewrite and reintroduce such evidence (with supporting links) to the evidence page.
Some submissions remaining on the evidence page still require further supporting evidence. For example, claims about broader pattern of behavior need to be supported by comparable evidence. A paucity of diffs, links only showing some mild infractions, or otherwise weak evidence may result in your assertions being granted much less weight.
I encourage all parties to finalize their evidence and focus on the workshop over the next few days as the case moves towards resolution. If you have any comments, questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. Vassyana ( talk) 16:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
The above-linked Arbitration case has been closed and the final decision published.
In the event that any user mentioned by name in this decision engages in further disruptive editing on Ayn Rand or any related article or page (one year from the date of this decision or one year from the expiration of any topic ban applied to the user in this decision, whichever is later), the user may be banned from that page or from the entire topic of Ayn Rand for an appropriate length of time by any uninvolved administrator or have any other remedy reasonably tailored to the circumstances imposed, such as a revert limitation. Similarly, an uninvolved administrator may impose a topic ban, revert limitation, or other appropriate sanction against any other editor who edits Ayn Rand or related articles or pages disruptively, provided that a warning has first been given with a link to this decision.
Both experienced and new editors on articles related to Ayn Rand are cautioned that this topic has previously been the subject of disruptive editing by both admirers and critics of Rand's writings and philosophy. Editors are reminded that when working on highly contentious topics like this one, it is all the more important that all editors adhere to fundamental Wikipedia policies. They are encouraged to make use of the dispute resolution process, including mediation assistance from Mediation Cabal or the Mediation Committee, in connection with any ongoing disputes or when serious disputes arise that cannot be resolved through the ordinary editing process.
For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 03:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kelly Craighead is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelly Craighead (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 12:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
16:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cloward–Piven strategy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cloward–Piven strategy until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. – Arms & Hearts ( talk) 13:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article John Berlau is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Berlau until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 02:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Syntacticus, and
welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for
your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the
New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}}
on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!
Ah-hah! I got to welcome you twice!
That's a cool username, by the way. Cheers, CWC (talk) 11:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Chris. I thought it was an appropriate nom de plume. Syntacticus 04:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to
Barack Obama, but we regretfully cannot accept
original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a
reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. --
Scjessey (
talk)
02:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. I have been editing entries for a long time and am aware of the rules. You appear to have jumped the gun: I am not finished this edit yet. Best. Syntacticus ( talk) 02:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions, including your edits to
Barack Obama. However, please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that
biographical information about living persons must not be
libelous. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article, or any other Wikipedia page, must include proper
sources. Your edits cited a reference that cannot be considered a
reliable source by any conceivable measure. Please discuss additions of a contentious nature on
Talk:Barack Obama before making them. --
Scjessey (
talk)
02:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to
attack other editors, as you did on
Talk:Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Gamaliel (
talk)
17:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Gamaliel: I wish you and others would stop welcoming me to Wikipedia. I've been on it for 2 years, I think. Although I may not be the most active Wikipedian, I have at least a passing familiarity with the rules. Don't patronize me. Syntacticus ( talk) 06:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
FYI: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelly Craighead. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
My concerns have be remedied at the article, and I believe that my remaining concerns can be worked out via the talk page. It has been 24 hours since you have edited the article, so if you want to list your concerns, do it soon. The others have a right to have the tag removed if they don't get solid reasons to keep it. I promise you that a reasonable request, reasonably stated will get heard better, with more likelihood of acceptance than angry ones. I have a wierd attraction to controversial topics, but i have found that I have been able to make edits by being reasonable that I would have never been able to get otherwise. you can too if you don't alienate everyone. I know it is hard sometimes, and we all loose it sometimes, but I have had productive discussions with all but one of the editors there ( can't like everyone, can you?). Die4Dixie ( talk) 08:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
You are mentioned here: [ [1]] Bali ultimate ( talk) 18:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
This edit, [2] to Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, following two other reversions of the same material, [3] [4] is disruptive and violates a number of Wikipedia policies: WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:EW, etc. You have reverted material four times in the article within a few hours, (the other one here [5]) so it is a likely WP:3RR violation. You have been warned about WP:COI edits that may also be a WP:SOCK violation. In addition, if it turns out you are associated with Capital Research Center it is a WP:COI problem as well. You have also been engaging in tendentious editing at Southern Poverty Law Center. I will revert the edits as disruptive if they have not been already. Do not repeat these edits or you will likely be blocked at least temporarily by an administrator from further editing to avoid disruption. - Wikidemon ( talk) 07:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Please stop edit warring to insert disputed content into the encyclopedia. These two edits [6] [7] insert a WP:BLP violation by repeating scandalous allegations from an unreliable source. In addition, they continue to promote the position of the Capital Research Center, which you seem to be affiliated with, and your edit summary accusing another editor of "bad faith" is a WP:AGF violation. Stop this, or you will likely be blocked from further editing the encyclopedia. Wikidemon ( talk) 09:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
An article you recently created has been listed for a deletion discussion. [ [8]] Bali ultimate ( talk) 13:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Removing AfD tags is against policy. Don't do it again. Bali ultimate ( talk) 02:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I saw your message on my talk page, but am unable to find the request at mediation. If you could give me a link , I'd be pleased as I would like to see this resolved for you and believe you should be entitled to be heard on it. Die4Dixie ( talk) 02:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry. Not sure what to tell you. There were so many blanks to fill in on the form. Working on it. Syntacticus ( talk) 02:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
It's all bewildering, like a Kafka novel. Surprisingly bureaucratic. Must go to bed now. Thanks and good night. Syntacticus ( talk) 07:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
A user who has attempted to say you are Vadum has been the subject of an ANI report by myself. This si a violation of WP policy , and a serious one. Die4Dixie ( talk) 23:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the heads up but I'm not sure I follow you completely. I saw that but wasn't aware it's against the rules to try to identify an editor. Although I've been on Wikipedia since 2006 I've never taken a dispute as far as I have with the ACORN article and it has never been as nasty as this. Things like the User Check process were previously unknown to me (and I'm still not sure I understand it fully). What happens now? Syntacticus ( talk) 06:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
OK. Thanks again. Where might I find the WP policy on outing? I'd never heard of it before, though I suppose it makes sense. I don't think I have to do a lot of work to defend the Cloward-Piven Strategy article you're referring to but maybe I should do something. Syntacticus ( talk) 06:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
THe check user allows an admin with the check user priveledges to see the IP addresses that a user has edited from. A check user could reveal that I edit from two Ip addresses, or that I user my id and make an edit, and then log out to agree with myself in a content dispute doing the agreement from an anon IP. It is a way to make sure that users don't abuse the consensus building dynamic. If you are associated, or have ever edited form a computer owned by Capital research, I do urge you to reveal that up front. I hate to look stupid after I've gone to bat for you. If you do, that's ok. And it doesn't mean that you can't edit the articles in question, but it means that your edits will have to pass a certain muster for POV issues. Die4Dixie ( talk) 07:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
{{helpme}}
Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters has violated
WP:OUTING after being warned about same. He should be blocked permanently. Have I followed the correct procedure by reporting this here: [
[12]]?.
Syntacticus (
talk)
23:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue
dispute resolution.
Just a friendly reminder.-- The Magnificent Clean-keeper ( talk) 13:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Are you an admin? Why didn't you give a warning to Bali ultimate whose behavior was the same: [ [13]]? Syntacticus ( talk) 02:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I've filed an RfM on Ayn Rand, including as parties only those who've recently edited the article. However, as you've commented on talk, you might want to be involved too. If so, please add your name to the list of parties at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ayn Rand. Cheers, SlimVirgin talk| contribs 02:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
A request for arbitration has been filed with the Arbitration Committee that lists you as a party. The Arbitration Committee requires that all parties listed in an arbitration must be notified of the aribtration. You can review the request at [14]. If you are unfamiliar with arbitration on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Arbitration. Idag ( talk) 22:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 00:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Please make note of the message posted on the evidence talk page regarding the need for supporting evidence. This is a general courtesy note being left for all editors who have submitted evidence in the case. Be well, -- Vassyana ( talk) 07:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
This is a courtesy note to all editors who have submitted evidence. Some contributions to the evidence page have been moved to the evidence talk page, per the prior notice given. General comments, observations, analysis and so forth should be posted to the evidence talk page and workshop pages. Main evidence page contributions need to be supported by linked evidence. Material moved to, or posted on, the arbitration case talk pages will still be noted and taken into account by the arbitrators.
Some portions of evidence moved to the talk page may be appropriate for the main evidence page. In the process of moving material, keeping some material on the main evidence page would have required rewriting the evidence, taking bits clumsily out of context, or otherwise deeply affecting the presentation. Editors should feel free to rewrite and reintroduce such evidence (with supporting links) to the evidence page.
Some submissions remaining on the evidence page still require further supporting evidence. For example, claims about broader pattern of behavior need to be supported by comparable evidence. A paucity of diffs, links only showing some mild infractions, or otherwise weak evidence may result in your assertions being granted much less weight.
I encourage all parties to finalize their evidence and focus on the workshop over the next few days as the case moves towards resolution. If you have any comments, questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. Vassyana ( talk) 16:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
The above-linked Arbitration case has been closed and the final decision published.
In the event that any user mentioned by name in this decision engages in further disruptive editing on Ayn Rand or any related article or page (one year from the date of this decision or one year from the expiration of any topic ban applied to the user in this decision, whichever is later), the user may be banned from that page or from the entire topic of Ayn Rand for an appropriate length of time by any uninvolved administrator or have any other remedy reasonably tailored to the circumstances imposed, such as a revert limitation. Similarly, an uninvolved administrator may impose a topic ban, revert limitation, or other appropriate sanction against any other editor who edits Ayn Rand or related articles or pages disruptively, provided that a warning has first been given with a link to this decision.
Both experienced and new editors on articles related to Ayn Rand are cautioned that this topic has previously been the subject of disruptive editing by both admirers and critics of Rand's writings and philosophy. Editors are reminded that when working on highly contentious topics like this one, it is all the more important that all editors adhere to fundamental Wikipedia policies. They are encouraged to make use of the dispute resolution process, including mediation assistance from Mediation Cabal or the Mediation Committee, in connection with any ongoing disputes or when serious disputes arise that cannot be resolved through the ordinary editing process.
For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 03:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kelly Craighead is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelly Craighead (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 12:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
16:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cloward–Piven strategy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cloward–Piven strategy until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. – Arms & Hearts ( talk) 13:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article John Berlau is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Berlau until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 02:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)