|
Hi ViperFace! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join experienced editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from experienced editors. These editors have been around for a long time and have extensive knowledge about how Wikipedia works. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from experts. I hope to see you there! TheOriginalSoni ( I'm a Teahouse host) This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot ( talk) 16:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC) |
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Women Against Registry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arnold. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:41, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello, ViperFace. We
welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things
you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a
conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.
All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.
If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:
- Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
- Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
- Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
- Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.
Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.
For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 21:03, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
- On the Sex offender page, your edit caused a broken reference name ( help). ( Fix | Ask for help)
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sex offender, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Walsh. 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, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi ViperFace,
I'm going to keep this short and impersonal, because I'm
assuming you're trying to help and are open to suggestions, and because I don't want to get into a big dispute with you.
You've been adding material to many pages relating to criticism of U.S. legal and societal treatment of
sex offenders. This is absolutely fine per se. But I believe you've been going too far and violating the policies on
WP:Activism,
WP:Neutral point of view,
WP:Undue weight, and possibly
WP:Conflict of Interest. Please read these policies with an open mind, do some soul-searching, and decide whether you think you can contribute according to their instructions. If you can, I look forward to seeing your
balanced edits in future; if not, I wish you the best with your
WP:NOBLE efforts off Wikipedia.
Please tell me, with references to WP policies, if you think I'm out of bounds in any way. (I'm new here too, and have made my share of mistakes.)
FourViolas (
talk) 05:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi FourViolas ( talk · contribs)
- I don't know if I'm out of pounds. I have tried to maintain neutral point of view, but since I have mostly covered criticism and since the most academic research result on sex offender issues in U.S seem to be critical to current states of the laws, it is pretty hard to come up with balancing "positive things" to say that have not been included in the articles already. Of course I could find tons of popular media articles cheering for the registries, but this is not the case with academia which is more relevant IMO, and that is why I have tried to add more content about criticism/make existing criticism more coherent. I'll take a look of WP:s you presented. BTW I already answered on some of the issues you raised on sex offender article talk page.
- Thanks to you and
User:Noterie for keeping your cool as several experienced editors swoop in and heavily change your contributions. I'm personally satisfied that you're two different good-faith editors. I'm sorry if anything in this incident has upset you—I'd be surprised if it hadn't, given the controversial topic and many contribs involved—but I believe that patience, collaboration, and
extreme AGF will get everyone through this.
I respect your noble desire to balance public prejudice with academic consensus (even if I think the situation is more complicated than that). As Herostratus suggested, keep your "criticism of US laws" sections short, factual, and punchy; put in a few impeccably sourced statements about academic opinion and leave it. Even if you maintain an activist position, a concise, true section on "Scientists and HRW think this needs to change" will have a better effect than the global insertion of tendentious language. You have to treat readers' preconceptions gently; when I first encountered your version of the Offender article, I actually thought it was the work of some embittered offender. (immediate disclaimer and clarification: I have no reason whatsoever to believe that you have any personal relation to sexual offenses besides that of a third-party human-rights activist.) I'm not telling you that to insult you or accuse you (again, I can believe that you're a disinterested Finn), just to bring to your attention that criticizing the harshness of offenders' treatment outside a section dedicated to that purpose does not necessarily advance your cause.
Again, thanks for keeping calm and for sticking around to keep improving coverage of this topic. FourViolas ( talk) 12:33, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks to you and
User:Noterie for keeping your cool as several experienced editors swoop in and heavily change your contributions. I'm personally satisfied that you're two different good-faith editors. I'm sorry if anything in this incident has upset you—I'd be surprised if it hadn't, given the controversial topic and many contribs involved—but I believe that patience, collaboration, and
extreme AGF will get everyone through this.
Calm schmalm. I've gotten nothing but accusation after accusation from user: Flyer22, who clearly had her mind made up before I did anything, and unlike everyone else, appears to be just digging her heals in making up still more unfalsifiable accusations. Sorry, but I have a real world case to finish preparing for. I had this crazy idea that the information I was gathering would be useful to wikipedia, which was/will continue to be missing almost everything scholars have to say about it. See 'ya. Noterie ( talk) 13:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- Like I told you at the Sex offender talk page, Noterie, I've caught various WP:Sockpuppets and recognize when editors are not new (or are not completely new) to editing Wikipedia (whether they are WP:Sockpuppets or not); many at this site know that, just like they know that I am well-versed in a variety of scholarly topics and commonly add scholarly text to articles. Wikipedia will never be complete; it's designed to repeatedly change. Flyer22 ( talk) 13:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello and
welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to
sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
- Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
- With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (
or
) located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Thank you. -- SineBot ( talk) 10:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Oh no! You forgot to log in again! Flyer save us!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noterie ( talk • contribs) 20:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Viper. No one knows better than I how frustrating this is. My experience, however, is that when push comes to shove, the editors writing calmly are much more convincing. I agree entirely with your very reasonable demand that people who are opposing the inclusion of essentially any RSs on the topic should produce any RS supporting the view they appear to hold. You might, however, consider rewording the more personal part of your comment " your kind MONGO (that is people who DO NOT open the articles and read it, but go and revert edits and claim misleading/pov-pushing for any arbitrary WP:IDONTLIKEIT reasons. " — James Cantor ( talk) 14:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
You need to gain a strong consensus for your edits or face a topic ban. You continue along the path you are now, which is to try and use Wikipedia as a vehicle to promote your agenda, and you are going to face a site ban.-- MONGO 19:08, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- Why don't you follow WP:Neutral_point_of_view#Achieving_neutrality and WP:PRESERVE MONGO?? Help me out here. It seems like this is going to arbitrators, since we are not clearly going to find common ground. As more experienced editor I ask you to take this dispute to be resolved by arbitrators. ViperFace ( talk) 15:43, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Arkansas Time After Time, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Russellville. 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) 09:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Nomination of Advocates For Change for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Advocates For Change 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/Advocates For Change until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 19:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sex offender registry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Address. 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) 09:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Good job on your recent edits. The material appears to be easier to read and less redundant after your edits. Now, if you have the time, I invite you to make similar efforts at the "Overview" section of that same article, which is certainly not an overview, and appears to be a copy/paste job from another article. Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 02:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for your kind words,
Etamni. I might try to improve the overview section at some point. I'm currently working on
Sex_offender_registries_in_the_United_States and there's still much to do there. If you have any comments on that article, I'd like to hear them. Many articles related to these subjects are pretty messed up atm. This is a shame since the topic, particularly the broadness of the term "sex offender" and harshness of the US registries has been recently covered internationally following Zach Anderson case and these articles are read quite often, I assume. It's nice to see some new interested editors in these topics.
ViperFace (
talk) 15:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
- I'll look over the article more fully later. I did review another editor's deletion of some sources, and agree that there were too many in one spot. I made a minor copy edit on that paragraph, but will look at it further as I have time. Even though English is not your first language, you are doing quite well in making what you write understandable. Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 08:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, you know that people read user pages, right? Anyway, there is a deprecated link on your user page, that should be replaced with this one: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_49#Sex_offender_and_Adam_Walsh_Act Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 08:19, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- I see the above has been fixed. Under the "list of absurd..." your first link is about Lonny Leon Rivera; here is a more complete link for the same story: Courthouse News Service: He's Not a Sex Offender, Married Man Says. (The source appears to be a news outlet with editorial oversight of what it publishes.) Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 17:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Merger discussion for Megan's law , Jacob Wetterling Act , and Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act
Articles that you have been involved in editing— Megan's law , Jacob Wetterling Act , and Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act —have been proposed for merging with Sex offender registries in the United States. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 18:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Megan's Law, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Federal. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I have not finished my work on the sex offender registries in the United States. It still needs reorganization and rewrite. But I'm waiting until I have a Windows computer and some time to work on it, probably by this weekend.
I'm glad to edit anything you wish on sex offender registries or the criminal justice system in the United States, including if it's in your sandbox. Editing would be primarily for English. English requires more articles than you customarily use, for exampleI don't mean to disparage your English, it takes real guts to write publicly in a non-native language. The situation is identical with me writing in Spanish. I am an active contributor to the Spanish WP (es.wikipedia.org, which is actually a more civil and civilized place than the English one.
I feel it's the responsibility of us whose native language is English to correct that of non-native speakers, subject to their approval of course. I've had Spanish speakers do the same to me. Please don't take offense. deisenbe ( talk) 04:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello, ViperFace. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.-- MONGO 11:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Just to say that your comments would not raise any eyebrows in the UK. In fact successive UK governments have argued for anonymity. Regards JRPG ( talk) 20:24, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I've nominated several images you've uploaded for deletion: see Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 October 28#File:Murderer of Megan Kanka.jpeg. A public-records law is not the same thing as a public domain dedication: it typically only permits exact copies of the records, whereas a public domain dedication removes all restrictions on copying and the creation of derivative works. -- Carnildo ( talk) 01:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- ViperFace...your comments here appear almost as double voting. You can rebut others or add more the your original comment but it currently appears as double voting which is forbidden.-- MONGO 08:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
ViperFace...anymore using an IP to attack those you disagree with or comments like this one and I'm going to post at AN/I for a review of your edits. You be already referred to myself and others as liars and or lying and I'm about done with this from you.-- MONGO 04:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you mean. I have been logged in all the time.
- "to attack those you disagree with". LOL!!! Really?? Look who's talking. I got plenty of diffs of you accusing me and another editor for being "apologetic for deviant behavior". I also got a diff of uninvolved editor accusing you of NPA violation against me. Nice try of muddying the waters again. I can see trough your BS. Now go ask Scrap, Dheyward or Tom to help you with the edit war.
ViperFace (
talk) 04:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- As you wish.-- MONGO 06:06, 17 November 2015 (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) 17:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Given your interest in criminology, you might be interested in this BBC program. Long Whatton is also described here]. Regards JRPG ( talk) 10:08, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks JRPG, and sorry for the late response. I'll take a look of this program when I have more time. Maybe there's something useful for improving [ [1]], although I'm trying to have a break for some time from these topics. ViperFace ( talk) 01:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Effectiveness of sex offender registration policies in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Washington State. 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) 09:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Your contributed article, Constitutionality of sex offender registries in the United States
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Constitutionality of sex offender registries in the United States. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – sex offender registries in the United States. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at sex offender registries in the United States – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.
If you think the article you created should remain separate, 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. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. DHeyward ( talk) 16:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
ScrapIronIV. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of
your recent contributions to
Megan's Law because they appeared to be promotional.
Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "
soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.
Scr★pIron
IV 16:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to
Megan's Law. While
objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be
a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you.
Scr★pIron
IV 16:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- User:ScrapIronIV Take a look at what you reverted and you will find that there was nothing promotional with the edit. [2] The content I replaced made generalizations based on one study from New Jersey and takes position that these laws are worthless in all forms, when the summary I added says the results are mixed with some finding positive and some finding negative effects with majority finding no effect. Why would you prefer a single study from New Jersey to be representative of what is known about the effectiveness when we have an article summarizing the findings of Office of Justice Programs? If you honestly believe your edit was made in good faith rather than personal attack against me then by all means take this matter to A/NI. Remember that Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not about winning. ViperFace ( talk) 17:05, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello, and
welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an
edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at
Sex offender registries in the United States. Although repeatedly
reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the
normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a
consensus on the
talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Scr★pIron IV 21:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, ViperFace. 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)
Thanks for uploading File:Ilvoices logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 17:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:CA RSOL logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 18:06, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello, ViperFace. 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)
Thanks for uploading File:Reform Sex Offender Laws, Inc. logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 18:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, ViperFace. 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)
Nomination of Migration events in Finland in 2015 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Migration events in Finland in 2015 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/Migration events in Finland in 2015 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. Drmies ( talk) 01:48, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Alliance for Constitutional Sex Offense Laws.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 02:25, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
The article Michigan Citizens for Justice has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
one person organization with one interview, not notable
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.
This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot ( talk) 10:00, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
The article Families Advocating an Intelligent Registry has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
this article is just a copy of a mission statement, wp:notmission wp:promo etc
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.
Also:
This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot ( talk) 10:00, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Michigan Citizens for Justice.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 02:28, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Nomination of Movement to reform sex offender laws in the United States for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Movement to reform sex offender laws in the United States 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.
How I could just edit a wiki article ( talk) 07:25, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Nomination of Families Advocating an Intelligent Registry for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Families Advocating an Intelligent Registry 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.
How I could just edit a wiki article ( talk) 07:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Nomination of Illinois Voices for Reform for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Illinois Voices for Reform 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.
How I could just edit a wiki article ( talk) 05:17, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Arkansas Time After Time logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 17:06, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Florida Action Committee log.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 17:18, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:National Association for Rational Sexual Offense Laws logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 17:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
|
|
Hi ViperFace! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join experienced editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from experienced editors. These editors have been around for a long time and have extensive knowledge about how Wikipedia works. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from experts. I hope to see you there! TheOriginalSoni ( I'm a Teahouse host) This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot ( talk) 16:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC) |
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Women Against Registry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arnold. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:41, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello, ViperFace. We
welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things
you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a
conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.
All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.
If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:
- Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
- Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
- Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
- Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.
Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.
For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 21:03, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
- On the Sex offender page, your edit caused a broken reference name ( help). ( Fix | Ask for help)
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sex offender, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Walsh. 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, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi ViperFace,
I'm going to keep this short and impersonal, because I'm
assuming you're trying to help and are open to suggestions, and because I don't want to get into a big dispute with you.
You've been adding material to many pages relating to criticism of U.S. legal and societal treatment of
sex offenders. This is absolutely fine per se. But I believe you've been going too far and violating the policies on
WP:Activism,
WP:Neutral point of view,
WP:Undue weight, and possibly
WP:Conflict of Interest. Please read these policies with an open mind, do some soul-searching, and decide whether you think you can contribute according to their instructions. If you can, I look forward to seeing your
balanced edits in future; if not, I wish you the best with your
WP:NOBLE efforts off Wikipedia.
Please tell me, with references to WP policies, if you think I'm out of bounds in any way. (I'm new here too, and have made my share of mistakes.)
FourViolas (
talk) 05:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi FourViolas ( talk · contribs)
- I don't know if I'm out of pounds. I have tried to maintain neutral point of view, but since I have mostly covered criticism and since the most academic research result on sex offender issues in U.S seem to be critical to current states of the laws, it is pretty hard to come up with balancing "positive things" to say that have not been included in the articles already. Of course I could find tons of popular media articles cheering for the registries, but this is not the case with academia which is more relevant IMO, and that is why I have tried to add more content about criticism/make existing criticism more coherent. I'll take a look of WP:s you presented. BTW I already answered on some of the issues you raised on sex offender article talk page.
- Thanks to you and
User:Noterie for keeping your cool as several experienced editors swoop in and heavily change your contributions. I'm personally satisfied that you're two different good-faith editors. I'm sorry if anything in this incident has upset you—I'd be surprised if it hadn't, given the controversial topic and many contribs involved—but I believe that patience, collaboration, and
extreme AGF will get everyone through this.
I respect your noble desire to balance public prejudice with academic consensus (even if I think the situation is more complicated than that). As Herostratus suggested, keep your "criticism of US laws" sections short, factual, and punchy; put in a few impeccably sourced statements about academic opinion and leave it. Even if you maintain an activist position, a concise, true section on "Scientists and HRW think this needs to change" will have a better effect than the global insertion of tendentious language. You have to treat readers' preconceptions gently; when I first encountered your version of the Offender article, I actually thought it was the work of some embittered offender. (immediate disclaimer and clarification: I have no reason whatsoever to believe that you have any personal relation to sexual offenses besides that of a third-party human-rights activist.) I'm not telling you that to insult you or accuse you (again, I can believe that you're a disinterested Finn), just to bring to your attention that criticizing the harshness of offenders' treatment outside a section dedicated to that purpose does not necessarily advance your cause.
Again, thanks for keeping calm and for sticking around to keep improving coverage of this topic. FourViolas ( talk) 12:33, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks to you and
User:Noterie for keeping your cool as several experienced editors swoop in and heavily change your contributions. I'm personally satisfied that you're two different good-faith editors. I'm sorry if anything in this incident has upset you—I'd be surprised if it hadn't, given the controversial topic and many contribs involved—but I believe that patience, collaboration, and
extreme AGF will get everyone through this.
Calm schmalm. I've gotten nothing but accusation after accusation from user: Flyer22, who clearly had her mind made up before I did anything, and unlike everyone else, appears to be just digging her heals in making up still more unfalsifiable accusations. Sorry, but I have a real world case to finish preparing for. I had this crazy idea that the information I was gathering would be useful to wikipedia, which was/will continue to be missing almost everything scholars have to say about it. See 'ya. Noterie ( talk) 13:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- Like I told you at the Sex offender talk page, Noterie, I've caught various WP:Sockpuppets and recognize when editors are not new (or are not completely new) to editing Wikipedia (whether they are WP:Sockpuppets or not); many at this site know that, just like they know that I am well-versed in a variety of scholarly topics and commonly add scholarly text to articles. Wikipedia will never be complete; it's designed to repeatedly change. Flyer22 ( talk) 13:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello and
welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to
sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
- Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
- With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (
or
) located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Thank you. -- SineBot ( talk) 10:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Oh no! You forgot to log in again! Flyer save us!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noterie ( talk • contribs) 20:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Viper. No one knows better than I how frustrating this is. My experience, however, is that when push comes to shove, the editors writing calmly are much more convincing. I agree entirely with your very reasonable demand that people who are opposing the inclusion of essentially any RSs on the topic should produce any RS supporting the view they appear to hold. You might, however, consider rewording the more personal part of your comment " your kind MONGO (that is people who DO NOT open the articles and read it, but go and revert edits and claim misleading/pov-pushing for any arbitrary WP:IDONTLIKEIT reasons. " — James Cantor ( talk) 14:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
You need to gain a strong consensus for your edits or face a topic ban. You continue along the path you are now, which is to try and use Wikipedia as a vehicle to promote your agenda, and you are going to face a site ban.-- MONGO 19:08, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- Why don't you follow WP:Neutral_point_of_view#Achieving_neutrality and WP:PRESERVE MONGO?? Help me out here. It seems like this is going to arbitrators, since we are not clearly going to find common ground. As more experienced editor I ask you to take this dispute to be resolved by arbitrators. ViperFace ( talk) 15:43, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Arkansas Time After Time, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Russellville. 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) 09:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Nomination of Advocates For Change for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Advocates For Change 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/Advocates For Change until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 19:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sex offender registry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Address. 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) 09:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Good job on your recent edits. The material appears to be easier to read and less redundant after your edits. Now, if you have the time, I invite you to make similar efforts at the "Overview" section of that same article, which is certainly not an overview, and appears to be a copy/paste job from another article. Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 02:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for your kind words,
Etamni. I might try to improve the overview section at some point. I'm currently working on
Sex_offender_registries_in_the_United_States and there's still much to do there. If you have any comments on that article, I'd like to hear them. Many articles related to these subjects are pretty messed up atm. This is a shame since the topic, particularly the broadness of the term "sex offender" and harshness of the US registries has been recently covered internationally following Zach Anderson case and these articles are read quite often, I assume. It's nice to see some new interested editors in these topics.
ViperFace (
talk) 15:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
- I'll look over the article more fully later. I did review another editor's deletion of some sources, and agree that there were too many in one spot. I made a minor copy edit on that paragraph, but will look at it further as I have time. Even though English is not your first language, you are doing quite well in making what you write understandable. Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 08:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, you know that people read user pages, right? Anyway, there is a deprecated link on your user page, that should be replaced with this one: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_49#Sex_offender_and_Adam_Walsh_Act Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 08:19, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- I see the above has been fixed. Under the "list of absurd..." your first link is about Lonny Leon Rivera; here is a more complete link for the same story: Courthouse News Service: He's Not a Sex Offender, Married Man Says. (The source appears to be a news outlet with editorial oversight of what it publishes.) Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 17:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Merger discussion for Megan's law , Jacob Wetterling Act , and Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act
Articles that you have been involved in editing— Megan's law , Jacob Wetterling Act , and Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act —have been proposed for merging with Sex offender registries in the United States. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 18:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Megan's Law, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Federal. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I have not finished my work on the sex offender registries in the United States. It still needs reorganization and rewrite. But I'm waiting until I have a Windows computer and some time to work on it, probably by this weekend.
I'm glad to edit anything you wish on sex offender registries or the criminal justice system in the United States, including if it's in your sandbox. Editing would be primarily for English. English requires more articles than you customarily use, for exampleI don't mean to disparage your English, it takes real guts to write publicly in a non-native language. The situation is identical with me writing in Spanish. I am an active contributor to the Spanish WP (es.wikipedia.org, which is actually a more civil and civilized place than the English one.
I feel it's the responsibility of us whose native language is English to correct that of non-native speakers, subject to their approval of course. I've had Spanish speakers do the same to me. Please don't take offense. deisenbe ( talk) 04:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello, ViperFace. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.-- MONGO 11:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Just to say that your comments would not raise any eyebrows in the UK. In fact successive UK governments have argued for anonymity. Regards JRPG ( talk) 20:24, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I've nominated several images you've uploaded for deletion: see Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 October 28#File:Murderer of Megan Kanka.jpeg. A public-records law is not the same thing as a public domain dedication: it typically only permits exact copies of the records, whereas a public domain dedication removes all restrictions on copying and the creation of derivative works. -- Carnildo ( talk) 01:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- ViperFace...your comments here appear almost as double voting. You can rebut others or add more the your original comment but it currently appears as double voting which is forbidden.-- MONGO 08:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
ViperFace...anymore using an IP to attack those you disagree with or comments like this one and I'm going to post at AN/I for a review of your edits. You be already referred to myself and others as liars and or lying and I'm about done with this from you.-- MONGO 04:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you mean. I have been logged in all the time.
- "to attack those you disagree with". LOL!!! Really?? Look who's talking. I got plenty of diffs of you accusing me and another editor for being "apologetic for deviant behavior". I also got a diff of uninvolved editor accusing you of NPA violation against me. Nice try of muddying the waters again. I can see trough your BS. Now go ask Scrap, Dheyward or Tom to help you with the edit war.
ViperFace (
talk) 04:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- As you wish.-- MONGO 06:06, 17 November 2015 (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) 17:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Given your interest in criminology, you might be interested in this BBC program. Long Whatton is also described here]. Regards JRPG ( talk) 10:08, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks JRPG, and sorry for the late response. I'll take a look of this program when I have more time. Maybe there's something useful for improving [ [1]], although I'm trying to have a break for some time from these topics. ViperFace ( talk) 01:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Effectiveness of sex offender registration policies in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Washington State. 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) 09:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Your contributed article, Constitutionality of sex offender registries in the United States
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Constitutionality of sex offender registries in the United States. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – sex offender registries in the United States. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at sex offender registries in the United States – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.
If you think the article you created should remain separate, 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. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. DHeyward ( talk) 16:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
ScrapIronIV. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of
your recent contributions to
Megan's Law because they appeared to be promotional.
Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "
soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.
Scr★pIron
IV 16:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to
Megan's Law. While
objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be
a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you.
Scr★pIron
IV 16:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- User:ScrapIronIV Take a look at what you reverted and you will find that there was nothing promotional with the edit. [2] The content I replaced made generalizations based on one study from New Jersey and takes position that these laws are worthless in all forms, when the summary I added says the results are mixed with some finding positive and some finding negative effects with majority finding no effect. Why would you prefer a single study from New Jersey to be representative of what is known about the effectiveness when we have an article summarizing the findings of Office of Justice Programs? If you honestly believe your edit was made in good faith rather than personal attack against me then by all means take this matter to A/NI. Remember that Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not about winning. ViperFace ( talk) 17:05, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello, and
welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an
edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at
Sex offender registries in the United States. Although repeatedly
reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the
normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a
consensus on the
talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Scr★pIron IV 21:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, ViperFace. 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)
Thanks for uploading File:Ilvoices logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 17:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:CA RSOL logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 18:06, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello, ViperFace. 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)
Thanks for uploading File:Reform Sex Offender Laws, Inc. logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 18:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, ViperFace. 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)
Nomination of Migration events in Finland in 2015 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Migration events in Finland in 2015 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/Migration events in Finland in 2015 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. Drmies ( talk) 01:48, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Alliance for Constitutional Sex Offense Laws.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 02:25, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
The article Michigan Citizens for Justice has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
one person organization with one interview, not notable
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.
This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot ( talk) 10:00, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
The article Families Advocating an Intelligent Registry has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
this article is just a copy of a mission statement, wp:notmission wp:promo etc
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.
Also:
This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot ( talk) 10:00, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Michigan Citizens for Justice.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 02:28, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Nomination of Movement to reform sex offender laws in the United States for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Movement to reform sex offender laws in the United States 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.
How I could just edit a wiki article ( talk) 07:25, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Nomination of Families Advocating an Intelligent Registry for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Families Advocating an Intelligent Registry 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.
How I could just edit a wiki article ( talk) 07:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Nomination of Illinois Voices for Reform for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Illinois Voices for Reform 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.
How I could just edit a wiki article ( talk) 05:17, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Arkansas Time After Time logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 17:06, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Florida Action Committee log.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 17:18, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:National Association for Rational Sexual Offense Laws logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 17:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)