Wwdamron

Your submission at Articles for creation

You recently made a submission to Articles for Creation. Your article has been reviewed and because some issues were found, it could not be accepted in its current form; it is now located at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Vitaherpavac. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. Feel free to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} to the top of the article.) Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! sonia♫ 21:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Vitaherpavac concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Vitaherpavac, a page you created has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements. If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13. Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 22:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Your article submission Vitaherpavac

Hello Wwdamron. It has been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled Vitaherpavac.

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note, however, that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Vitaherpavac}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 19:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Please use them. Your edit summary statistics should be 100%. Otherwise great work. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Creating a New Article For List of Rapes by number of Victims

There is already an Article for "List of Serial Killers by number of victims" so why not a "List of Serial Rapist by Number of Victims" ?

I hope it isn't rejected when I submit it. It is in the draft phase now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:List_of_serial_rapists_by_number_of_victims

Cosby's rescinded degrees

Would it be a good idea to put all this in a table (in both articles), similar to the List of known accusers? -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't know, it's an idea. I would have to think on that and how to implement it. Honorayr Degrees Rescinded the number, why. I am not sure I know that one of Cosby's Attorney's responded to a statements of the degree a university said, that was very damaging to Cosby and how they perceived to know Cosby is without a doubt one of America's Greatest serial Rapists..

I will think of how to do this and incroporate the different stories surrounding his Honorary degrees..Wwdamron (talk) 15:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking of a table where all the content for the degrees could be placed, with a "Rescinded" column for the date, and one could also have a "Details" column for the commentary, all based on content and sources found here: Bill Cosby#Honorary degrees and Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations#Institutions. It would start with the earliest and end with the latest.

It could look something like this: -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:28, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

This is easy to do and I thank you for giving me the opportunity to work on something. I may very well do this. But I want to preserve the university's responses as to why they rescinded the degrees through their direct quotes and COsby's own attorney who responded to at least one of the University's responses which was very deflamatory but yet seemed very accurate as it contained truth's since it was related to his own deposition. You don;t rescind a degree without a very SERIOUS reason, and explanations are good to know.

I am having a hard time figuring out how to incorporate that into this table.

I think this is probably best suited for Cosby's own wikiped page "BIil COsby under Honaroary Degrees". This to me does not seem to fit in with what I would completely expect on "Bill COsby : Sexual Assault Allegations" page under "Institutions sever Ties" and rather just under Bill Cosby's Main page.

Also in a related topic it lists Bill COsby's years actrive from "1962 - present" This in my opinion should read 1962-2015 , since his career is over. If he rebounds , it could read 1962-2015 , 2018-2019 for example. The last known appearance by Cosby was the Slema March, The last known Interview was before the Selma March and the last known COmedy was in Atlanta. All of his knew tv shows and movies, etc.. have been scrapped , so his career ended months ago.

back to the list, I can work on it, but I only want to put it under his 'Bill COsby" main page it will also include degrees that have not been rescinded. But his Alleged Sexual Assault page, like i said before, needs to contain the stories behind the University's as to why and include , Cosby's and his Attorney's etc.. responses. I FEEL VERY STRONGLY about this.

Wwdamron (talk) 00:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

All that content goes in the "Details" column. You can pack a whole lot in there. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:53, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I am going to work on this table, another University just revoked Cosby's degree today, making 8 and I know there are at least 10 more that are going to vote on it in the next few weeks and months.Wwdamron (talk) 16:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

This looks good! Here's an idea you can play with. In the "Details" column you could write less and place the rest (like long quotes) in a "Notes" section. That will make the table a bit leaner and easier to read. It's just a thought. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll play around with it. until we can get something looking alot better.Wwdamron (talk) 17:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

It's Now up to 11 Rescinded degrees (I think) and the work Begins Wwdamron (talk) 20:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Year Awarded	Honorary degree	Institution	Rescinded	Details
1985	Doctor of Letters	Brown University	September 28, 2015	This is only the second time an Honorary degree has been revoked in the 251-year-old university history, the other being in 1918 in which Johann Heinrich von Bernstorff who was German ambassador to the United States had his revoked. President Christina Paxson wrote in a statement, "It has become clear, by his own admission in legal depositions that became public this summer, that Mr. Cosby has engaged in conduct with women that is contrary to the values of Brown." She added, "It is particularly troubling as our university community continues to confront the very real challenges of sexual violence on our campus and in society at large, and had it been known to the Fellows in 1985, an honorary degree ... would not have been conferred."
2001	Doctor of Fine Arts	Fordham University	September 24, 2015	It was the first time Fordham had ever rescinded an honorary Degree in its 174 year history. Fordham said, "The University has taken this extraordinary step in light of Mr. Cosby’s now-public court depositions that confirm many of the allegations made against him by numerous women." Fordham's statement went further and said, "That Mr. Cosby was willing to drug and rape women for his sexual gratification, and further damage those same women’s reputations and careers to obscure his guilt, hurt not only his victims, but all women, and is beyond the pale.The next day Cosby's top attorney John P. Schmitt sent a strongly worded letter to Fordham University calling it's statement about rescinding Cosby's honorary doctoral degree "so irresponisible as to shock the conscience", He went on further to say,"The mischaracterization of Mr. Cosby's testimony is so egregious that one can only conclude that it was written by one either unfamiliar with the testimony or determined deliberately to misrepresent Mr. Cosby's words." In his letter to Fordham, Schmitt criticized the university for an apparent effort to lend "gratuituous support" to defamation suits pending against Cosby, citing what he called the school's unfounded claim that the entertainer has a "longtime strategy of denigrating the reputations of women who accused him of such actions."

References for Honorary degrees table
References

Question about a deletion of your comment

Let's start with some history before I ask my question. I'm trying to figure out what all went down during all of Hamster's disruptive actions at Talk:Bill Cosby. Here is some of it:

1. Hamster deleted my subheading;
2. Hamster refused to accept a consensus that was explicitly stated above;
3. Hamster started an improper new section;
4. Hamster removed Wwdamron's carefully placed comment. (note the edit summary(!!));
5. User:Jumplike23 objects to Hamster's creation of the new section;
6. I restored my improperly deleted subheading;
7. I protested his deletion of the subheading, told him I had restored it, and protested his hijacking of the discussion;
8. I added another subheading to note actual beginning of discussion and to make it clear that discussion should stay below, and !votes above;
9. I replied to Hamster's lame excuse;
10. Cwobeel notes the existing consensus;
11. Jumplike23 notes the deletion of his edit (What was that about?)
12. Hamster comments and reveals he has not read the actual suggested wordings or he is just refusing to recognize them. It's a form of stonewalling;
13. Wwdamron states the discussion should be closed;
14. I agree with Wwdamron and Jumplike23 and hat the discussion;
15. I added a subheading to identify the actual content;
16. Hamster removes the hatting. Claims I'm closing the discussion, but the discussion in the section wasn't fruitful, unlike the discussion which had been occurring above the section. Anyone was still welcome to discuss there;
17. Hamster again refuses to accept the consensus and makes more false claims, even claiming I'm hijacking the page;
18. Hamster makes the improper and unproductive section an RfC;
19. Hamster makes the most bold and absurdly false claims yet:
    "User:BullRangifer, you have edited this entire talk page to change the order in which things were said and the titles of the sections in which they were said. This section here is completely new and you have moved all these posts from the section above. Now some of the comments have been placed under a much different context than when they were originally written. This is creating a lot of confusion at best and is dishonest at worst. Stop editing other people's entries and sections."
    (Those claims are ALL totally false and made out of whole cloth!!!)
20. Hamster vandalizes my subheading in preparation for reordering sections;
21. Hamster moves the whole RfC above the sections above it. Now everything is out of whack and not chronological. This is a total hijack of the discussion by Hamster. He has done what he falsely accused me of doing.

Up to this point there were only four editors, with three against Hamster. He was the only one objecting, and also the one making all the disruption.

After this radical change, editors who had been forum shopped began to appear. They hadn't a clue that things are out of whack, so they were easily confused and deceived by Hamster, but they didn't know it, so some started believing him and blaming me.

Nowhere in all of this did I change the order of comments or sections or block participation in discussions. Everyone was welcome to keep discussing.

Those are the main problematic edits, although there is more deception on other pages as well. The more I look, the more I see manipulation of content. He has deleted at least one of my comments on his talk page, and totally refuses to provide any evidence backing his false claims. He repeats those claims in several venues, thus making me look bad. Maunus (who is not an admin) has defended him, so I'm backing off from getting justice from that corner.

Now my question

Please take a look at the Cosby article history. Then look at your two additions of the same content in two very different places on 03:07 and 03:08, October 28.

If I understand it correctly, the edit summary on your first one (03:07) contained a clear message for Hamster: "This should be closed now after adding "Accused of sexually assaulting numerous women" in very first line." The edit itself was also very clear. You thought Hamster's new section (later made into an RfC) was not proper, the consensus version should be added to the end of the first sentence, and the discussion closed.

A few edits later, Hamster removed your comment!. He did not want that message and rebuke in his (later) RfC! His edit summary shows how confused he was (the removed comment was not a copy paste, but the other one was).

Was it proper for Hamster to remove your edit? Shouldn't it be restored? Please ping me. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 08:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

{{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} It was meant to be in both sections, since He (Hamster:) started a new section with the same discussion. So yes I purposely placed it in BOTH sections, it was not an accident as He suggested. He talks about vandalism, but so far he seems to be the only one who is vandalizing. I do not have the knowledge or power to know what to do about him. Wwdamron (talk) 14:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

That's as I suspected. (Right now, don't worry about what to do about him, just fix this matter.)

Because he has seriously poisoned the well against me in several venues, I can't defend myself. I have to depend on other editors to do it, such as striking, deleting, or replying to his latest TPG violation and BS personal attack here. Therefore it's not wise for me to restore your edit, but you can do it. Since many editors do not read edit summaries, you need to make sure they get the whole story, so, if I were you, I'd restore the original edit with its sig and timestamp, and include your original edit summary in an explanation, plus diffs. Your edit summary should also make it clear why you are restoring it, since your edit summary cannot be deleted. It's your edit, so you can safely do this because the removal was totally improper, it's a talk page, not an article, and it's not edit warring.

Below is what was deleted, with the indentations at the proper levels so it will get noticed (I have been careful with the different levels of indents), and the original sig has the original timestamp which shows it belongs exactly where you place it. Restore all of it, with an explanation (it's all between the lines below):

---

(I am restoring my original comment where it belongs. The following comment was improperly deleted by Hamsterlopithecus. I had deliberately placed it here, using the following edit summary: "This should be closed now after adding "Accused of sexually assaulting numerous women" in very first line." This was just one of many improper things which Hamsterlopithecus did on this page and elsewhere to hijack the discussion and mislead editors whom he forum shopped to come here. YOUR SIG)

User:BullRangifer #4 in my opinion, I will let you User:BullRangifer decide since you have the most clout (I did temporarily revert it back to #3, but quickly undid it).

As for User:Hamsterlopithecus, I am almost starting to believe you are a Cosby sympathizer and letting your emotions dictate or that you feel sorry for Cosby. This is not an opinion, these are facts and cannot be dictated my emotions.

FACT - Cosby has been accused by many people of Serial Rape, Sexual Assault and other Sex crimes, with new things surfacing on just about a daily basis, with many witness's to back these women's stories up.

FACT - This is probably the biggest scandal in modern USA history and will be talked about for centuries to come.

CONCLUSION - It would be Vandalism (in my and the majority of peoples opinions) to revert it back if it is changed to one of User:BullRangifer conclusions.

User:BullRangifer please go ahead and change it, number 4 in my opinion, also in my opinion citations are probably not necessary under any of your scenarios except a possible embedded link to Cosby's Sexual assault allegation page in addition to the tex in the very First sentence, but any of the other would be okay for now as well.

Wwdamron (talk) 03:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

---

Your edit summary should explain why you are restoring, so write something like this: "I am restoring my original comment which was improperly deleted by Hamsterlopithecus." It's not enough to just explain in the edit. The edit summary is a permanent record.

You can tweak the wordings of the explanation and edit summary if you choose. (Add your four tildes at YOUR SIG.) This should all be restored in its original location, immediately above the second comment which starts with "Just FYI..." It's in this section. Please ping me. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 16:44, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Are you going to restore your deleted edit so the record on that page will be correct? --{{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 05:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

BullRangifer Yes, I would, if I knew how, if you can provide me step by step way to do it I would. You can email it to me if you don;twant to tell me how to do it here at wwdamron1@gmail.com . I have never restored something like that under these types of circumstances before and don;t know how about doing it and what else I should do as well. That's my only holdup. Once I learn I will learn something new. It's probably easier than what I think, but I don't have a problem with restoring it at all, I'll do it or even you can do it with my Endorsement(if that is possible or a good way of doing it). Either way, I just don;t know how to do it , thanks. Wwdamron (talk) 18:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay, then go ahead and follow these instructions:

1. open this link in another window,
2. prepare to edit the section there,
3. open up the space where you want to place the content (above the "Just FYI").
4. Then open the editing window here,
5. copy all the content above that's between the lines, with the indents it has now,
6. place it there, then make sure you don't leave too many blank lines above or below your edit (one is enough).
7. When you are ready to save it, place the edit summary, preview everything you've done, and then save it if it looks right.

If you agree on the proposed edit summary, then use it. If not, go ahead and tweak it. Make sure you place your signature in the spot I have prepared for it (YOUR SIG). -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 03:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring that content. I have fixed the indents. You forgot them, so it was just one big wall of text.

I added your current sig with timestamp at the spot reserved for it (YOUR SIG). -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

It appears there is more activity on this front. You may wish to activate your email. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:11, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Statute of Limitations in CA, Cosby, accuser Goins

Hi, I reverted your edit deleting the section that said charges from the Goins case could not be made at this late date. The citation I had provided for that section, LA Times, says:

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-la-bill-cosby-allegations-venue-20151230-story.html In most other adult sex-crime cases -- including the type Goins is alleging -- the statute of limitations is generally six years. But legal experts said there are other reasons for the LAPD to investigate, especially if Cosby is charged with a crime. California law allows victims to testify as witnesses even if their own cases never result in charges. The evidence is admissible because of a 1996 change in California law that allowed witnesses to prove a pattern of behavior or propensity to commit a crime.i.e. She clould testify in other charges (Such as the one in PA re: Constand but that does not mean that Cosby could be charged in the Goins case in CA).

I read the citation you provided www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2015/12/30/chloe-goins-wants-her-case-against-bill-cosby-to-spur-criminal-charges-too but I could find no mention that the Statute of Limitations might be longer than 6 years in CA. It just says Goins would LIKE charges to be laid in her case but then just discusses the Constand charges in PA. (btw, the statute depends on the state; it is longer in PA and that is why they were able to lay a charge in Dec. 2015 re: an incident that occurred in Jan. 2004. It is 12 years in the state of PA)

If I am wrong, I would delete the section about the Limitation in the Goins case. But I would need to read an article that says so in a reliable source. Cheers! Peter K Burian (talk) 21:28, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

That's okay, but I think it needs to be edited that the case might still fall under the statute of limitations, since certain sex crimes can be up to 10 years. Why would Goins say this about her case after she has to know the statute of limitations has expired on the six year period. And why does the LAPD NOT say specifically that GOINS case CANNOT be prosecuted now ? I understand that they can investigate beyond prosecutable cases , but know one of proper authority has confirmed without doubt that Goins case cannot be tried Criminally. Wwdamron (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Dahmer's tally

Didn't you leave a message on my talk page 4 or 6 months ago regarding Dahmer? He confessed to 17 - as proven in the text (and referenced at that). If you read the article you'll see his ONLY Ohio victim's pulverized body parts were recovered and identified. The murder was further proven by luminol stains beneath the house corroborating his confession to where he stored/dismembered the corpse. As for the only victim dropped from the charges at his Wisconsin trial - the message is still on my talk page as to why (sole reason dropped Dahmer was so drunk he couldn't recall the actual murder itself). It's 17 - but could have been as low as 12 had Dahmer not confessed. Regards--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:List of serial rapists by number of victims concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:List of serial rapists by number of victims, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations

I have removed part of your addition to the above article, as it appears to have been copied directly from the copyright source web page. — Diannaa (talk) 19:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:List of serial rapists by number of victims

Hello, Wwdamron. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "List of serial rapists by number of victims".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 20:58, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Wwdamron. 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)

Disambiguation link notification for March 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mark Few, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bruce Weber. 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) 10:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Wwdamron. 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)

March 2018

Hello, I'm Meters. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Anthony Weiner seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. You have had this edit undone twice, and multiple other editors have remove similar edits. Either discuss it on the talk page or leave it alone. Meters (talk) 19:52, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

May 2018

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Anthony Weiner, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Meters (talk) 18:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

(talk) huh ???? its already in the page, it totally contradicts what i already said in the page on Anthony Weiner --->>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Weiner#Personal_life Wwdamron (talk) 20:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Abedin/Weiner divorce

You should probably read the cited sources more carefully. The case was withdrawn from public court to be negotiated privately, but the sources are clear that they will be divorcing each other. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:39, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Adam Vinatieri, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gary Anderson (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) 09:19, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Wwdamron. 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)

Removal of info

Re: this edit. Please see WP:SOURCE and WP:BLP. Those are very important and bedrock policies. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Input welcome

Since you have participated in editing the page before, your input on this discussion and the relevance of including this info is welcome here: Talk:Madison Cawthorn#Use of white nationalist symbolsEccekevin (talk) 19:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Mammoth Cave System

Hello do you have a reference to confirm your figure: 675.92 km. Bob's last publication is dated March 13, 2021 [1].

Friendships --Biboc (talk) 10:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

In-game updates

Please do not update player articles during a game with anything stat related, including adding records while the game is still going on. Other updates are fine, just not anything stat or record related.--Rockchalk717 23:32, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I don;t understand ? The Game ended on NOvember 26,2022 I updated it on December 20, 2022 ? Wwdamron (talk) 14:51, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Adolph Rupp winning record

Might you be able to recall the source of data that you provided on the Adolph Rupp page, regarding his winning record? Your data has been taken down, not because it was not truthful, but because it lacked a footnoted source. We can get your data re-published, if you can recall the source of your data that you published. Was it from a book about Adolph? Was it from the NCAA accessible records? Was it from a newspaper article or magazine article? Hopefully, you can give me a hand in this matter, and I can get it re-published. Beaconboy (talk) 20:12, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)