User talk:Serialjoepsycho

Wikipedia ads	file info – show another – #139

en:User:Serialjoepsycho/sunshine/message

Really convenient button to Push and post a message here on my talk page

---

Please comment on Talk:Campus sexual assault

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Campus sexual assault. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 22 November 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) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Monarchy of Canada

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Monarchy of Canada. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Good day to you!

Again, thank you for helping me with the aspersion link. May I ask, for future reference, how I can find prior ArbCom cases in order to pinpoint a specific FoF, proposed principal, or remedy? Hope I never have to refer to them after the current case but I would like to know if you would be so kind as to advise me? Your in-depth knowledge about such things is commendable. Atsme^📞📧 15:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Beyond that specific one you are going to have to dumpster dive into the archives, WP:ARB/I.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

That works for me. Thank you! Atsme^📞📧 17:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Though alot of times if you already know the language you can try to throw a wp on the front of it, WP:aspersions, they like to make important aspects like this very accessible. You might also look at ANI or AN archives as well to see if and how they have handled an issue.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Deletion review, Request for comment related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annie Butler (3rd nomination)

There is pending deletion review for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annie Butler (3rd nomination), filed 28 November 2015, which seeks to change the result of that AfD. Because you commented in the underlying AfD for the Annie Butler article, you are being notified of the DRV discussion @ Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 November 28, so that you may comment in the pending DRV if you so desire. For an explanation of the DRV process, please see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

Also, please be aware that there is also a related Request for Comment regarding the validity of "delete and redirect" for AfD !votes and outcomes, filed 30 November 2015. Because you commented in the underlying AfD which prompted the RfC, you are being notified of the RfC discussion @ Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#RFC: delete and redirect. For an explanation of the RfC process, please see Wikipedia:Request for comment.

Thank you. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:03, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Guide to Deletion

SJP, I thought you would be interested to know that the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion explicitly recognizes "Delete then Redirect", stating "Redirect is a recommendation to keep the article's history but to blank the content and replace it with a redirect. Users who want to see the article's history destroyed should explicitly recommend Delete then Redirect." The Guide has incorporated such guidance regarding "Delete then Redirect" since September 2005; before that, it previously included the concept of "Delete and then re-create as Redirect". Anyone who is suggesting that "Delete and redirect" !votes and outcomes are either improper or unheard does not know our well-established AfD procedures. Moreover, anyone who suggests that there is a built-in policy preference for keeping and/or restoring article history after a consensus "delete" or "delete and redirect" AfD outcome needs to do some more reading; nowhere in either WP:Deletion policy or WP:Editing policy is such a preference for the preservation of article history (as opposed to article content -- not the same thing) actually stated. The Guide to Deletion recognizes the distinction recognizes the distinction between history and content, and the validity of an !vote to delete the history. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:41, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm assuming the rfc is to change this is someway. My position is that we should preserve the history unless there is some over riding reason to delete it. Can I give an example of such justification? Beyond copyright, which would likely be taken care of else where, but I feel likely that there could be such a case. When I say that it should be decided by consensus I don't mean by popular vote. To me what is said is more important than what is popular.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Katie.com: My Story

Hi Joe, Thanks for keeping an eye on this article. Over the past few days two new IP accounts and a brand new user have either edited or commented in favor of Katie Jones (the woman whose domain name was used by the book publisher). In addition, one of the main commenters on the talk page from last year, John Alan Elson, has no user page and his user talk page was deleted on Aug 26, 2014 and I can't find a list of contributions for him. So something fishy here and we should keep our eyes open....... Also, I've made some content changes per WP:BLP and put a note on the talk page. I'd love to have your input. Thanks, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:00, 2 December 2015 (UTC)