J.J., Wow! You're right. Then again, you are always right (I recognized your name from elsewhere, how many J.J. PRP's are there in PA, after all). Thanks for correcting it. However, one note, you are only supposed to sign your name to talk pages, not to articles, so I tookthat out of there for you. Feel free to reply here, if you would like, as I am watching your talk page. meamemg 23:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you for the information regarding signatures. I have taken them out where added in two other articles.

I am thinking of a separate article on Majority of the Entire Membership and Majority of the fixed membership, if the concept is confusing.

I'm obviously quite surprised you would recognize my user name. There are only 11 PRP's in PA, so we all kinda know each other.

Again, thank you for your help.-- J. J. in PA 00:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm here, too...and recognized you immediately. I do have my doubts about the long-term viability of Wikipedia. -- Jay Maynard 00:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC) reply

I do as well, but I'm staying around because it'll be interesting to see how it plays out, and whether my efforts can help prevent its failure. Obuibo Mbstpo ( talk) 22:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Jay, I recognized you at least.

Please note that I've added majority of the entire membership and majority of the fixed membership.

I did a bio of former Congressman Don Bailey, and I'd like someone in Bios or Congressional Politics to check it. If you know anyone in those areas, could you give them a heads up?

-- J. J. in PA 01:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC) reply

There is a Wikiproject for Congress, which I recomend you at least take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_U.S._Congress. It exists to try and co-ordinate all of the congress related articles. meamemg 02:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC) reply

I don't understand what you want. A federal law commanding everyone to adopt the same style of etiquette?

The federal government addresses mayors as honorable, http://www.epa.gov/swerosps/bf/html-doc/confmayo.htm -- I don't know how things are done in Western Pennsylvania, but the mayor of New York City has been honorable for about 340 years now. IN NYC, borough presidents, city commissioners of functional departments, the chancellor of the school system and council members all get "honorable" -- the City's own museum, for instance, lists them this way on its own website http://www.mcny.org/visit/about.html, the City Council uses these throughout their documents http://webdocs.nyccouncil.info/attachments/56570.htm, and they are so listed in every official document that uses honorable (as opposed to their actual job title) I've ever seen. HarvardOxon 22:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC) reply

1. The Infoplease site (which has no legal authority) states that commissioners get it, so if you want to keep citing it, then you are contradicting yourself. 2. You keep citing this Washington Life magazine, as though it were the Code of Federal Regulations -- its a DC gossip and entertainment advertiser, and some party-goer correspondent put together a half-tongue-in-cheek piece on ex government employees...so what? 3. The city commissioners of Ashland KY get it... http://www.ashlandky.org/contact.htm 4. City Counclmembers in LA get it http://www.mikefeuerforassembly.com/endorsements 5. Chicago aldermen and Cicero trustees get it http://www.transitchicago.com/news/motion/blue/douglas/comm.html 6. the Hoboken City Coiunbcil gets it http://www.hobokennj.org/html/ccouncil/cc.html, how many more do I need so that my information 'counts" as valid??? HarvardOxon 23:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC) reply

WEhat article is in error? Local heads of departments means municipal -- like city...check the LA schools, the NYC department of parks, etc......What do you mean by local? Deputy Borough Presidents who are neither elected not "communications officers" get it. A press secretary, BTW, isn't the head of a municipal functional department. HarvardOxon 00:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Please get a copy of the Municipal Greenbook, for God's sake. The Parks, Fire, Police, Citywode Administrative Servioces, Environmental protecvtion, records and Rchives Admionitsration department commissiiners, just for openers, are NOT elected!!!!! HarvardOxon 00:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Try this http://www.lausd.k12.ca.us/lausd/board/secretary/html/bd-members/huizar.pdf HarvardOxon 00:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Or this: http://www.novaregion.org/commission.htm HarvardOxon 00:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC) reply

In other words, you've started this whole discdussion screaming andf whining that only feds get honorable...then when proven not to know what you're tal;king about, you had to admit that state officials do, including appointed state, then you had to amdit mayros do, then you had to admit council members do , then aldermen, then some local appointed commissioners --- you started this discussion making a broad asertion that was wrong, and you are clinging like grim death to nitpicking words to prove that you can find a word in the entry that is only sometimes true. I found all of these references that p[rove everything you have said so far is wrong in a few minutes with a simple google search. If you want to write a long, elaborate paragraph showing that the whole entry is perfectly correct, but that in SOME municipalities, SOME non-elected department heads don't get Hionorable, go ahead, but then you will have to write an entry for each and every exception to THAT rule that you include, including, as I pointed out, all instances in NEw York, and now apparenmtly some in LA, and so on. HarvardOxon 00:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC) reply

J.J, Only administrators are allowed to block users. However, if you find someone vandalizing a page, you should revert the vandalism, and leave them a warning. If they do not respond to the warning, then you should report them at Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism meamemg 20:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Warnings can be left at the vandalizing users talk page. In the case of non-registered users, this would be the talk page for their IP address. However, it looks like you have been reverting the edits of "Lawprofessor", who is a registered user, so you would leave them at User_talk:Lawprofessor. In this case, I would recommend adding either {{subst:uw-vand2}} or {{subst:uw-vand3}} to his talk page. meamemg 02:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I do believe your claim is correct, as most legislatures adopt a parliamentary authority, or use one out of custom. Could you provide documentation or remove it? J. J. in PA 23:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I have no knowledge of the source of this claim; the sentence I added to Parliamentary authority was just copied from Parliamentary procedure, where there is not any reference. I'm not sure whether you do or do not believe that the specific authorities mentioned are popular in the UK, but feel free to edit the articles to be factually accurate. I'm not sure if you want to say "these particular authories are in fact not popular" or if there is some semantic point you object to. One alternative format is to make a list of notable authorities without specifying their popularity or lack thereof, until some references for this information have been located. The individual articles on the authorities may already have such references, though. I have marked both articles as unreferenced. -- Beland 18:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I just wanted to let you know about the formation of WikiProject Parliamentary Procedure. We hope to cover all the major motions and parliamentary procedure terms. You are welcome to join. Obuibo Mbstpo ( talk) 21:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply

You can go to Wikipedia:WPPP#Participants and sign with four tildes. Obuibo Mbstpo ( talk) 22:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Of course, there's also this cool userbox which you can add to your page using the code below:

This user is a member of WikiProject Parliamentary Procedure.

{{ User:UBX/WikiProject Parliamentary Procedure}}

Obuibo Mbstpo ( talk) 22:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Here! :^)  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 23:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for responding, J. J. in PA. I'm asking for your expertise -- or at least input, lol -- on how we might operate procedurally since what we're contemplating is sort of new ground.  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 00:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Much thanks!  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 01:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks so much, J. This is what I have so far --

This page will have an advisory council, whose membership would be decided upon by consensus of contributors on this page, with non-members of the council able to forward a motion through one of its members, providing they find one willing to give it voice. The council itself would agree to its operational guidelines (setting a certain number as a quorum, etc.); while any one of its members would be allowed to offer spur-of-the-moment moderation of general contributors' activities, accompanying by that member's being empowered to threaten sanction -- however the member would limit the excercise of his discretionary powers to a standard s/he believes to be "snowballs" of the commitee at large.

Any feedback yet? (Although I know this question's premature.)  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 02:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks, J.! (P/s My developing Proposal No. 1 is here.)  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 04:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Oh, J. J., and should you find yourself prodded by inspirations of a critique you'd feel appropriate to post in the section of the proposal on the article's talkpage, we'd be very appreciative, too.  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 09:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Hello, J. J. in PA. You have new messages at I dream of horses's talk page.
Message added 20:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Hello, J. J. in PA. 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

Hello, J. J. in PA. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Hello, J. J. in PA. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ardencroft, Delaware, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arden ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 08:23, 19 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Caryn Ann Harlos, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. ―  Tartan357  ^Talk 06:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Caryn Ann Harlos. Thank you. ―  Tartan357  ^Talk 01:36, 3 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Caryn Ann Harlos. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ―  Tartan357  ^Talk 03:34, 3 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Your recent editing history at Caryn Ann Harlos shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ―  Tartan357  ^Talk 03:59, 3 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:J. J. in PA reported by User:Tartan357 (Result: ). Thank you. ―  Tartan357  ^Talk 04:10, 3 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Here is the link showing that the information is accurate. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OzfcEepE0o

31:00-42:00 J. J. in PA ( talk) 13:35, 3 June 2022 (UTC) reply

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages ( Caryn Ann Harlos) for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{ unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.   331dot ( talk) 12:23, 3 June 2022 (UTC) reply