LaidOff

This is just a friendly note to let you know a few things about the Barack Obama article. First off, it's told in summary style, which means most smaller level details belong in sub-articles, with only the most pertinent things to his biography included in the main article. Secondly, you didn't provide any citations for this edit, which is a big no-no in a featured article. Finally, that edit seemed to introduce some commentary of your own into the article, which is also a big no-no. I suggest taking the proposed addition to the Talk page, where it may be discussed with other editors. --GoodDamon 18:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

(e/c) stands for edit conflict - I tried to post and was blocked because someone else had changed the page before I pressed save. It is often used as a flag to indicate that the context that the comment was written for may have changed - the comment is not necessarily made with the immediately preceding post in mind etc. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helen Jones-Kelley. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

It's bad enough peole are trying to group War of 1812 in with the Napoleanic Wars. I would apreciate it if you did not try to turn the article into a soapbox for social and political commentary. It's just more mess to clean up. I reverted what you twisted in that article. Granted, some may be breathing down my neck for the Napoleanic Wars tag revert I keep doing, but I at least discuss it. And my edits are not making obvious commentary on how I personally feel. And please don't feign ignorance, we both know what you're at with the way you reworded certain parts of the article. Jersey John (talk) 15:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

RE: Spoken to any Canadians:

So you are basically telling me you prefer bias feelings over neutral fact? We can do without that, thank you. Jersey John (talk) 15:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

This is the reply also on my talk page:

The failed invasion, and subsequent attempts, were mentioned in the article BEFORE you edited it. Again your intention was quite clear. The issue I take is not that, it was how you worded things. The article was neutral and impartial before you decided to make political statements.Jersey John (talk) 18:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Just saw your latest edits, and I will say it looks better now. IMHO you hahave worded it better this time. It seems you have related the Canadian objectively. Looks good. Jersey John (talk) 18:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi. You've been making edits here and there. Care to comment on the current RFC? I'm guessing there's fatigue with the silliness here, but I'm sure we'd value your opinion. Mattnad (talk) 22:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Responding to your question: if I understand your point, you think he's a plumber in the practical sense (he has done plumbing work), but not a plumber in the legal sense (unlicensed, not in a apprentice program, and unemployed). My view is that we can of course write about his plumbing work in the article, and we do. But editors like Collect have been pushing for the former definition only, and simultaneously arguing that he's also legally a plumber (despite ample citations otherwise). Collect will never admit this, but I think he's doing this because Joe not being a real plumber made McCain look silly (again). This became clear when he accused me of being partisan and tried to remove the section that discussed Joe's licensing. So what I'm looking for is the removal of "Plumber" from the info box since it doesn't allow for the debate, and frankly it's not accurate based on what he's doing now, or what he did in the past. So, with that long explanation, I'd welcome your input. Thanks! Mattnad (talk) 11:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Go here to leave your opion on the the matter. Just add it to the end of the section. Mattnad (talk) 20:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

J'ai vu ton commentaire en Français. D'où vient tu? Mattnad (talk) 18:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Glad to see you contributing on the minwage page. I had to revert your condensation of what was a direct quote, but your other edit was helpful. We have a lot of work to do to make it a good article, but we seem to be making progress and I look forward to your continued contributions. Academic38 (talk) 08:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have made a pitch for some language on the baby boomer article that is intended to solve the stalemate with the Generation Jones consortium. If you want to weigh in...? --Knulclunk (talk) 04:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Just a couple of suggestions - don't try to stuff too much information into the lead (see WP:LEAD for guidelines) and read the sources more carefully (he wasn't a "TV repairman"} before making changes. Also, calling the lads "teens" is misleading, a look at the edit history will suggest why "youths" fits better. Finally, when the anon AOL user who purports to be Bernie himself shows up, try to be patient. Best, CliffC (talk) 15:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi, there's an ongoing RFC on User:Collect [1]. You've been an editor on Joe the Plumber so your perspective might be helpful.Mattnad (talk) 15:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi LaidOff,

I'm asking Wikipedians who are interested in United States legal articles to take a look at WP:Hornbook, the new "JD curriculum task force".

Our mission is to assimilate into Wikipedia all the insights of an American law school education, by reducing hornbooks to footnotes.

• Each casebook will have a subpage.

• Over the course of a semester, each subpage will shift its focus to track the unfolding curriculum(s) for classes using that casebook around the country.
• It will also feature an extensive, hyperlinked "index" or "outline" to that casebook, pointing to pages, headers, or {{anchors}} in Wikipedia (example).
• Individual law schools can freely adapt our casebook outlines to the idiosyncratic curriculum devised by each individual professor.

• I'm encouraging law students around the country to create local chapters of the club I'm starting at my own law school, "Student WP:Hornbook Editors". Using WP:Hornbook as our headquarters, we're hoping to create a study group so inclusive that nobody will dare not join.

What you can do now:

1. Add WP:Hornbook to your watchlist, {{User Hornbook}} to your userpage, and ~~~~ to Wikipedia:Hornbook/participants.

2. If you're a law student,

• Email http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Hornbook to your classmates, and tell them to do the same.
• Contact me directly via talk page or email about coordinating a chapter of "Student WP:Hornbook Editors" at your own school.

(You don't have to start the club, or even be involved in it; just help direct me to someone who might.)

3. Introduce yourself to me. Law editors on Wikipedia are a scarce commodity. Do knock on my talk page if there's an article you'd like help on.

Regards, Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 19:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

  Hello LaidOff! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 16 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Elizabeth Benjamin (journalist) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

if the American team completely collapsed then lost the game vs. Finland? :) NorthernThunder (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

  Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Jim Bunning appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. Willking1979 (talk) 17:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have started an ANI thread about you and some of your recent edits. Please feel free to respond here. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello, LaidOff,

You are invited meet with your fellow Wikipedians by attending the Montréal meetup scheduled on Sunday, June 27, 2010; between 1500 - 1700 to be held at the Comité Social Centre Sud (CSCS), located at 1710 Beaudry, in Montréal. You can sign up at the meetup page.

The meetup is happening in concurrence with RoCoCo 2010, a free, bilingual, weekend unconference including many people involved with Wikis both within the Wikipedia/Wikimedia Community and abroad. You do not need to attend the conference to sign up for the Wikimeetup, but you are certainly welcome! Bastique ^{☎ call me!}

(PS: Please share this with those you know who might not be on the delivery list, i.e. Users in Montreal/Quebec)

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) 00:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

 

A tag has been placed on Blair Levin requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} 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 hang-on 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. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Fæ (talk) 16:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply