Mr. Conservative
|
Important note edit
The userpage implies that this account is being used by multiple people. This goes against Wikipedia's policies, which state that each account must be used by only one person.
Representatives and/or employees of the Goldwater Institute are perfectly welcome to edit Wikipedia, and to openly represent their employer; however, we ask that they/you all have individual accounts.
Allow me to reassure you that you have not misbehaved. I will not be imposing a block; however, I strongly suggest that the first-person-plural statements on the userpage be changed to first-person-singular statements. DS (talk) 22:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Issue addressed edit
The userpage has been updated to reflect that this account belongs to one individual. Mr. Conservative (talk) 16:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Goldwater vs. City of Phoenix edit
Please do not make statements attacking people or groups of people. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — Timneu22 · talk 17:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
The article Coons v. Hallman has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Appears to be only a local issue, and there's no evidence of coverage in independent reliable sources
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Nyttend (talk) 01:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Darcy Olson edit
Hi there is a report at the BLP noticeboard about this BLP - thanks - Off2riorob (talk) 09:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
November 2011 edit
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Darcy A. Olsen. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Mr. Conservative, this is not to remind you, but to urge you to adhere to our policy of neutrality. Specifically in the Olsen article your edits have been far from neutral, and I must warn you that future such edits will result in a Conflict of Interest tag being place on top of the article, to warn unsuspecting readers that a person working for the institute helped write the article on the president of the institute. Drmies (talk) 18:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Conflict of Interest declaration recommendation edit
I urge you to add the following template to the talk page of the articles you are editing which has a connection to GI.
{{connected contributor|Mr. Conservative|declared=yes|editedhere=yes}}
Please place it immediately below any WikiProject Banners you see. I've already added it to several of the articles you've edited. Also, I urge you to think of yourself as a Wikipedia editor first and GI connected contributor second when it comes to the substantive material in the articles. Thanks. --S. Rich (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)16:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Nomination of Nick Dranias for deletion edit
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nick Dranias 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/Nick Dranias 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 19:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Nick Dranias edit
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.
A tag has been placed on Nick Dranias, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 13:54, 3 February 2014 (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) 13:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
The article Miller v. Arizona Corporation Commission has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
State-level lawsuit that apparently went nowhere lacks notability. Article was created by communications director of the plaintiff and is inappropriate for Wikipedia
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. Reywas92Talk 04:12, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
The article Matthew Ladner has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Article was written by the Communications Director of the Goldwater Institute as a inappropriately promotional article, lacks substantive *independent* sources to establish notability
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) 10:01, 12 April 2022 (UTC)