User talk:DHeyward: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Sagecandor (talk | contribs) |
Undid revision 783691415 by Sagecandor (talk) oh fuck off you busybody numbskull |
||
| Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
You said $10 million is the threshhold for a "major donor" on the Russian interference article talk page. I think it is far less. I don't believe there are more than a dozen individuals who donated more than $1 million. I could be wrong, and would be interested to see any data to the contrary. [[User:SPECIFICO |<font color ="0011FF"> '''SPECIFICO'''</font>]][[User_talk:SPECIFICO | ''talk'']] 23:08, 15 May 2017 (UTC) |
You said $10 million is the threshhold for a "major donor" on the Russian interference article talk page. I think it is far less. I don't believe there are more than a dozen individuals who donated more than $1 million. I could be wrong, and would be interested to see any data to the contrary. [[User:SPECIFICO |<font color ="0011FF"> '''SPECIFICO'''</font>]][[User_talk:SPECIFICO | ''talk'']] 23:08, 15 May 2017 (UTC) |
||
:https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topindivs.php The top 100 are all above $2 million. Soros on that list was $20 million at number 12. One of the Koch's was $4 million. The other wasn't listed so there are probably other bundling mechanisms. Devos was in the top 100 at $3.2 million. Prince was not in the top 100. --[[User:DHeyward|DHeyward]] ([[User talk:DHeyward#top|talk]]) 00:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC) |
:https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topindivs.php The top 100 are all above $2 million. Soros on that list was $20 million at number 12. One of the Koch's was $4 million. The other wasn't listed so there are probably other bundling mechanisms. Devos was in the top 100 at $3.2 million. Prince was not in the top 100. --[[User:DHeyward|DHeyward]] ([[User talk:DHeyward#top|talk]]) 00:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC) |
||
== Discretionary sanctions alert for American politics 2 == |
|||
{{Ivm|2=''This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does '''not''' imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.'' |
|||
'''Please carefully read this information:''' |
|||
The [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration Committee]] has authorised [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions|discretionary sanctions]] to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2|here]]. |
|||
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means [[Wikipedia:Administrators#Involved admins|uninvolved]] administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|purpose of Wikipedia]], our [[:Category:Wikipedia conduct policies|standards of behavior]], or relevant [[Wikipedia:List of policies|policies]]. Administrators may impose sanctions such as [[Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Types of restrictions|editing restrictions]], [[Wikipedia:Banning policy#Types of bans|bans]], or [[WP:Blocking policy|blocks]]. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. |
|||
}}{{Z33}}<!-- Derived from Template:Ds/alert --> |
|||
Note: Saw it in alerts history but not in talk page history. Not sure why it wasn't showing up on talk page history, so here it is. [[User:Sagecandor|Sagecandor]] ([[User talk:Sagecandor|talk]]) 00:54, 4 June 2017 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 00:58, 4 June 2017
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Tuesday
14
May
21:17 UTC
Please add comments to the bottom
A page you started (2016 Nice terrorist attack) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating 2016 Nice terrorist attack, DHeyward!
Wikipedia editor Pianoman320 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Thanks for adding this redirect!
To reply, leave a comment on Pianoman320's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
COI Notice
While this isn't looking at your editing... looking at one of the parties talk pages seems to indicate you might be interested in this.
ESPN.com reported her cause of death as stated in the article, which you removed. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 18:15, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Major donors to presidential campaigns
You said $10 million is the threshhold for a "major donor" on the Russian interference article talk page. I think it is far less. I don't believe there are more than a dozen individuals who donated more than $1 million. I could be wrong, and would be interested to see any data to the contrary. SPECIFICO talk 23:08, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topindivs.php The top 100 are all above $2 million. Soros on that list was $20 million at number 12. One of the Koch's was $4 million. The other wasn't listed so there are probably other bundling mechanisms. Devos was in the top 100 at $3.2 million. Prince was not in the top 100. --DHeyward (talk) 00:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)