User talk:Danielcmalloy

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Danielcmalloy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:10, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March and May, 2018[edit]

Hello, I'm Jhawkinson. I noticed that you've made a few edits recently concerning content related to living persons , but your changes were not sufficiently Neutral point of view (NPOV) and Verifiable, so have been removed. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people (WP:BLP), so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear.

In March, you edited Andrew McCabe and added information that had previously been discussed in the context of that article and determine to violate WP:BLP. It was removed ten minutes after your edit (but not by me).

Today, you edited Mary Jo White and your edit was similarly problematic. Although you attempted to include references, the information alleged in the Washington Post article is circumstantial and not sufficiently verifiable to merit appearance in biographical article on Wikipedia under the BLP policy. You also cited a Medium piece, but Medium is essentially a personal blogging platform and is not encyclopedic. I removed your edits.

Also, in both cases (McCabe and White), as well in your other Wikipedia edit (to James Robertson (judge)), you made mistakes that broke the formatting of the page. You attempted to add a link to the WaPo article but you made a typographical error in the URL, so the link didn't work; please copy-paste URLs rather than typing them by hand, and also please verify they actually work. Please make sure in future edits you use the Preview button, and ensure your edit looks correct, with no large warnings, and is consistent with the other formatting of the page, prior to publishing it.

(It you're up for it, it would be great to use Template:cite web when adding links, to format them correctly. But it is not required.)

You marked your White edit as "minor," but edits that add new information are not minor. This is especially so in the BLP context where they may be controversial, as they were here.

If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! jhawkinson (talk) 10:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Important Notice[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 13:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this edit[1] was entirely unacceptable and any future edits like that are likely to lead to a block or topic ban. Doug Weller talk 13:17, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

biographies of living people[edit]

I looked at your previous edits when I was undoing your edit to Letitia James, and you don't seem to quite understand Wikipedia requirements for biographies of living people or of reliable sourcing. Please read WP:BLP carefully. You might also want to look at reliable sources: perennial sources to get a feel for the frequently-used sources that editors have determined to be reliable or unreliable. Please note that the Daily Mail is never acceptable as a source in a BLP. Schazjmd (talk) 21:35, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020[edit]

Hello, I'm Jhawkinson. I noticed that you made a comment on my talk page that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. It's not appropriate to impute opinions to editors based on their homes, locations, or the places where they reside. It's also not appropriate to characterize their edits as "purging" a particular viewpoint, both because that choice of words is pejorative and rude, and also because that is almost never a fair characterization of characterization of another editor's work (and it was not a fair characterization in this case). It is further inappropriate to speculate on an editor's membership in some broad category of organizations, and to offer statements about your past or present contributions to such organizations. Lastly, it's not okay to say that others are "condemned." If you have any questions, you might want to review Wikipedia:No personal attacks and if it's still unclear, you may want to request administrative assistance. Given the nature of the issue, it would not be appropriate to raise it on my personal talk page. Thank you. jhawkinson (talk) 22:40, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Goldie Hawn edit[edit]

I have reverted your addition of a date of birth to Goldie Hawn. In addition to Wikipedia's basic principle of citing sources (Wikipedia:Citing sources), a special need for citations applies with regard to elements of a biography of a living person (WP:BLPPRIVACY). Feel free to add a date of birth when it is accompanied by a citation to a valid source. Eddie Blick (talk) 14:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 16:27, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Davidic line[edit]

David's article says third, not second. Doug Weller talk 16:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

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) 00:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]