User talk:GregJackP/Archive 10
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 14 |
December 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Binge v. Smith may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- ] 616 (1844), was a case decided by the [[Supreme Court of the Republic of Texas|Supreme Court]]] of the [[Republic of Texas]] which held that where one party to a joint contract dies, the
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Brookfield Asset Mgmt
Hey there GregJackP, thanks for your contributions over on Brookfield Asset Management! I have two thoughts I wanted to run past you before doing some more work on the entry:
On your first edit, I agree that Seeking Alpha is not a RS, and have hesitated in removing it only because the whole section to me seems wonky; I'm not sure what action to take that would make this area of the entry notable and verifiable. Section titles like "Who's in Control?" are so incredibly un-encyclopedic, I'm ready to remove the whole darn thing.
As for the second edit, regarding whether the SEC Filings are SPS, I can see your point, but, when I look at comparable entries, all use SEC filings to cite their data, although the majority of sites I sampled used a resource with the url secdatabase.com. What's your thought on this? Because the figures are submitted by the company but audited by the SEC, I would have thought that would pass muster, but apparently no?
Thanks again!Vt catamount (talk) 17:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- I can live with whatever you want to do to the article. GregJackP Boomer! 03:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Hah! Righto. Also, I was still vexed about the SEC/EDGAR Filings being SPS, so I took a peek at Reliable Sources Noticeboard and found that the filings have been discussed before (1)(2), and seem to fall under the category of Primary Sources - in our case, the use should be generally acceptable. Let me know if you disagree. Thanks! Vt catamount (talk) 17:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Supreme Court of the Republic of Texas
Hello! Your submission of Supreme Court of the Republic of Texas at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! I am One of Many (talk) 08:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Your comment
I just wanted to say that this is one of the best characterizations of Wikipedia editing I have ever read! It captures the essence of the problem in so few words. I am One of Many (talk) 05:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks
First, many thanks for your review, comments, and contributions to the Institute for Justice page. I have followed your advice and made many corrections. Had a question about one in particular. You removed the link to the organization's YouTube channel in the External Links section, citing wp:elno. The wp:elno article states that there is no blanket prohibition on links to YouTube. It does list concerns related to copyright, but that should not apply here. The organization owns the videos it posts its own channel page. Also, this is a link to a YouTube channel page (and not a link to a particular video). I can't see how this link would be an issue - is there another concern? I went ahead and re-instated the link. If you agree it's okay, you can ignore this note. If you see a problem, let me know. Thanks again! James Cage (talk) 20:11, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Also - found this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:YouTube_user. James Cage (talk) 20:24, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Rhode Island edit
First, I made very little edit to the page, other than removing repetitive information. As for the Legislative History section, it was rather confusing (not informative). You did not explain the status of the court prior to 1801. Maybe you should expand upon that. Last I checked, no page on Wikipedia is reserved for any specific individual, including you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ANTONI20 (talk • contribs) 02:45, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- First, would you rather I had warned you on any one of the other court articles that you are (improperly) removing material from without any stated reason? This is clearly not the first time that you have done this, nor the first warning. Or would you prefer to discuss it at ANI? Your call. GregJackP Boomer! 04:05, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Need/want to do a GAN?
If interested, I need a GA reviewer for Katherine Ritvo. No worries if you haven't the time, I can ask around at bit. Montanabw(talk) 07:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- OK GregJackP Boomer! 12:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Hawaii
I didn't remove any material which you already had cited. I just reformated it and expanded where necessary. Please explain to me which US Disitrct Court pages you OWN so that I may avoid them. In fact, I included additional information which you had not compiled. Not only is your grammar a huge run on sentence, but it also includes irrelevant subject matter: Aloha Tower and Downtown Honolulu. I also think that the hyperlinks under Notes are NOT relevant to the subject matter, since it is already included in the respective pages for the judges themselves. I also think that Succession of Seats is sufficient, without having to provide a history of seat assignments, unless you find the necessity of repeating subject matter.
I will go back to a few pages you reverted back and make appropriate stylistic changes. If you have any specific requests, then please advise me. Unfortunately, you have not communicated properly regarding your concerns and have instead taken a defensive position. Minor changes hardly constitute the overreactive nature you have been engaged in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ANTONI20 (talk • contribs) 08:44, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Other Update
Prior to reverting back, may I suggest that you review the changes first. It includes ALL of the information you have, including additional information (which you do not have). If there is specific material that you are concerned with including, then please advise me. However, you have concluded that only you have the authority to make revisions, changes to subject matter, and formatting. Proper communication could avoid conflict, yet you have not adequately communicated your concerns. Sometimes, reformatting does include removing material and placing it elsewhere (or rewording it). As long as the information previously conveyed remains, then I do not see an issue. I also did delete an entire paragraph that was clearly taken word by word, without proper citation (I think that is reasonable). — Preceding unsigned comment added by ANTONI20 (talk • contribs) 08:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- You really don't get it, do you? You are removing information, including cited sources, without any explanation. I will continue to protect articles from removal of sourced material unless there is some reason for it. I would suggest that you start complying with Wikipedia policies. You have been warned multiple times about removing content: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]; signing your posts [8], [9]; and shown uncivil behavior [10]. If you cannot show that you can edit collaboratively you'll find that this can be a harsh environment. GregJackP Boomer! 13:01, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Subsequent developments
Greetings, GregJackP. I hope you're enjoying the holidays. Taylor v. Beckham, a 1900 Supreme Court case resolving a disputed Kentucky election, is a current FAC. The nominator has a lot of experience with articles on Kentucky's history, but very little with articles on Supreme Court cases. There's some discussion about what information would be important to include in the "Subsequent developments" section, and I was wondering if you could give your two cents. (You probably know more about writing good law articles than anyone else I know, so your name immediately came to mind.) All the best, – Quadell (talk) 17:06, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- I looked at it, and while the nominator clearly has the history part down, the legal side of the article is nowhere near ready. I listed my objections at the FAC. GregJackP Boomer! 18:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of People v. Aguilar
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article People v. Aguilar you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Quadell -- Quadell (talk) 19:32, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of People v. Aguilar
The article People v. Aguilar you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold 
. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:People v. Aguilar for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Quadell -- Quadell (talk) 15:52, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of United States v. Ramsey (1926)
The article United States v. Ramsey (1926) you nominated as a good article has passed 
; see Talk:United States v. Ramsey (1926) for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of North8000 -- North8000 (talk) 16:12, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Will do
Will watchlist the FAC, I'm too involved to be a reviewer because I worked on the article, but I support the FAC and will say so as needed, and if there is a specific, reasonable tweak a reviewer wants, I'll lend a hand if I can. Montanabw(talk) 22:36, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Taylor Trescott -- Taylor Trescott (talk) 01:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Happy New Year GregJackP!
.jpg)
|
|
| Hello GregJackP: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Northamerica1000(talk) 10:12, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.
|
Your GA nomination of People v. Aguilar
The article People v. Aguilar you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:People v. Aguilar for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Quadell -- Quadell (talk) 13:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- I have what might be a silly question. I'm about to list People v. Aguilar at Wikipedia:Good articles/Social sciences and society#Law, but I'm not sure if I should list it under "Cases and domestic law" or "Constitutional and international law". Which is a better fit? – Quadell (talk) 13:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Edits
My edits are minor and are mostly formatting and adding additional information. Please note: ANYONE can edit on Wikipedia. I have not vandalized any page. That would mean deleting large sections of information. The only information that I have removed was that which was repetitive or unrelated to the article itself. I will continue to edit as necessary. You have decided that only you can determine what is going to presented on individual pages. I have expanded the information and added additional information which was not present. Please find another hobby. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ANTONI20 (talk • contribs) 04:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
You are removing sourced material without giving any reason. You have had a history of problem editing. Please take your proposed changes to the talkpages, before you remove material. If you continue to vandalize the articles, I will revert. While anyone can edit, we don't allow people to gut the articles by removing sourced material. GregJackP Boomer! 04:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- To add to GregJack's comment, anyone can edit and anyone can be reverted. It goes both ways. And guess what? WP:COMPETENCE is actually required. Montanabw(talk) 21:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Supreme Court of the Republic of Texas
Hello! Your submission of Supreme Court of the Republic of Texas at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 21:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
The Freedom of speech Barnstar
|
The Freedom of speech Barnstar | |
| On behalf of WikiProject Freedom of speech, The Freedom of speech Barnstar is awarded to GregJackP, for contributions related to expanding and improving the quality of articles on Wikipedia relevant to freedom of speech and censorship. From the participants at WikiProject Freedom of speech, thank you, — Cirt (talk) 04:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC) |
I have reverted your "promotion" of the above article to GA status, for reasons explained here. I would ask that you do not revert me, and instead engage in discussion in the appropriate location- the article talk page, GAR, or a new review. However, I would note that it's possible that you are too involved in the article to be a neutral reviewer at this time. J Milburn (talk) 15:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- Fine. I'll walk away. In the meantime, keep your racist asshole friend away from me. I will not tolerate his incivility, nor your apparent support of it. I note that you did not make any comment about his racist comments
go right ahead, send ten little Indians round to scalp me if you must
here, or insultsYou're an braindead idiot
here. There are plenty more examples, but you seem intelligent enough to get the point. I don't want to see him on my talkpage any more, nor anyone else who tolerates that type of racism. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 17:59, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- I appreciate your stepping away from the issue- that seems to be wise. MarcusBritish is not my friend- to my knowledge, we have never interacted. I will, however, leave a note on his talk page letting him know that you are desisting from the issue, and requesting that he stop posting on your talk page. We're all adults here; hopefully he'll be willing to respect your wishes. J Milburn (talk) 18:09, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- I accept that those kind of comments cross the line, of course I do, but I can't warn or sanction him in good conscience without doing the same to you. There was plenty of name-calling (as well some not-so-sensible references to nationality) coming from you as well; others who have commented on the dispute have seen fit to call on both of you to calm down (I don't really want to start playing the "he started it, but he was nastier" argument). In all honesty, I'd rather see both of you (both productive, well-intentioned editors) still editing, rather than seeing you both blocked. We're all adults here- me telling people off and preventing them from editing is just going to lead to bad feeling. Hopefully, if you're stepping away from the dispute and Marcus is happy to leave you alone, we can all put the unpleasantness behind us. J Milburn (talk) 18:59, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- Fine. Since you are content to enable racism and bigotry, you can stay off my talk page too. He is the one that brought my race into the picture, and I responded when he attempted to "instruct" me on how members of my race should feel. It is a documented fact that Amherst, a serving British officer, sent disease infected blankets to the tribes. The fact that you do not see the difference in his racism and my responses tells me all I need to know about you. I do not deal with either racists nor those that tolerate racism. So, like I said, you can stay the hell away from me too. GregJackP Boomer! 19:33, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
|
The Barnstar of Integrity | |
| I salute your courage, GregJackP! You have an enviable ability to stay calm in the face of adversity. Thanks for being such a great example. Poeticbent talk 21:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC) |
MarcusBritish
Hello GregJackP,
If you take a look at the editor's contribution page, you will see that this account has been blocked by Gorilla Warfare on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. I understand completely why you are so upset, but I sincerely hope that you will reconsider your retirement. In any event, I wish you well, and thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- I second that. Please take a break GregJackP, but we need you here precisely, because someone's got to stand up to narcisists who harbour averse racism. If not you, then who? Poeticbent talk 13:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- Also, if you chose to return, I would renominate War crimes in occupied Poland during World War II for you, so you could reinstate your GAN review anyway you wanted, and make is stick. Poeticbent talk 21:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Like and see [11]. Come back soon, I hope! Montanabw(talk) 01:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
DYK for Supreme Court of the Republic of Texas
 | On 14 January 2014, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Supreme Court of the Republic of Texas, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the first session of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Texas occurred over three years after it was established? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Supreme Court of the Republic of Texas. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Orlady (talk) 16:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for a supreme court, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Block
I have blocked you for the period of a week because of continued harassment of User:MarcusBritish. Your recent actions show that you are unwilling to stop perpetuating what seems to be a long-standing, very personal argument, and this is unacceptable. I would like to mention that this is not an ArbCom block, and so it can be appealed in the standard way. I would like to request that any unblocking administrator please contact me before reversing the block, however. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
GregJackP (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I can provide all of the information on the harassment I've been receiving, but have been advised not to post it on Wikipedia itself. If you want me to email the information to you, I am happy to do so. On interactions with Marcus, I just want to be left alone by him, and to go my own way, so that the off-wiki harassment by him will stop. GregJackP Boomer! 12:09 pm, 14 January 2014, last Tuesday (3 days ago) (UTC−5)
Accept reason:
Hello, GregJackP. Sorry to hear of all the trouble you've been going through. I've read your unblock reason, but I'd like to ask a specific follow-up question: Do you agree to have nothing to do with your previous antagonist, letting the matter lie? If so, I don't see any reason for your block to continue. – Quadell (talk) 12:21, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Sure, I'll agree. I had already agreed to walk away and was doing so when he resumed the personal attacks. If for some reason he became unblocked and he began to attack me again, I would contact an admin by email or IRC, and would do my best not to become involved on-wiki. GregJackP Boomer! 12:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Several pending GANs
Hey there. You have, assuming that I'm not missing any (I only saw the ones in the law section), four pending GANs. How would you like those handled? Do you intend to break retirement to fix any issues that arise? Is there another designee that you could tap to fix any issues that arise? Sven Manguard Wha? 07:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- I will take care of any matters that are pending. I have the GANs, an FAC, and a review I've put on hold. I'll finish what I've started, but won't take on anything else. GregJackP Boomer! 15:54, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- Also, I'm quite serious about your review reverted by J Milburn. We have resolved to provide full justification for your decision (given enough time). All best, Poeticbent talk 16:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, but I'm staying away from the drama. GregJackP Boomer! 16:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- I understand. The article will be renominated to cross the finish line without requiring your involvement. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 16:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, but I'm staying away from the drama. GregJackP Boomer! 16:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- Also, I'm quite serious about your review reverted by J Milburn. We have resolved to provide full justification for your decision (given enough time). All best, Poeticbent talk 16:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Trying to push an article to FA, heard you're an expert
Hi GJP-- We over at Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution have been discussing the possibility of trying to push it over the line to FA. Your name came up as a good person to talk to. I'm so sad to read that you've had some bad experiences on here.
But I for one will be rooting for you to come back. And if you do, I know one page that would love to have you. --HectorMoffet (talk) 17:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Bad Elk v. United States
The article Bad Elk v. United States you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Bad Elk v. United States for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Buffbills7701 -- Buffbills7701 (talk) 21:52, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
WikiCup
Are you in the WikiCup? Just wondering. I decided to try it this year, let me know if you have GAN to review, I'm trying to do more of them this year, seeing as how there is a point incentive to get me off the dime... Montanabw(talk) 17:45, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- No, I never have been much on WikiCup. I have the following articles pending at GAN:
- Any reviews would be appreciated. GregJackP Boomer! 20:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Idaho v. United States
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Idaho v. United States you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Montanabw -- Montanabw (talk) 22:51, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Requests for comment/QuackGuru2
Hi! There is currently a Request for comment regarding User:QuackGuru. I believe you may have interacted with this particular user in the past, and your input is greatly appreciated. Thank you! -A1candidate (talk) 19:38, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on changes to the AfC mailing list
Hello GregJackP! There is a discussion that your input is requested on! I look forward to your comments, thoughts, opinions, criticisms, and questions!
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page.
- This message was composed and sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 18:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seabuckthorn -- Seabuckthorn (talk) 00:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock
The article Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seabuckthorn -- Seabuckthorn (talk) 22:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Original Barnstar |
| For your many legal articles - I really do hope you come back :/. Ironholds (talk) 04:49, 1 March 2014 (UTC) |
Your GA nomination of Glik v. Cunniffe
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Glik v. Cunniffe you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wrestlinglover -- Wrestlinglover (talk) 01:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Precious again
justice for indigenous peoples
Thank you for quality articles for projects Indigenous peoples of North America and Law, such as Ex parte Crow Dog and United States v. Lara, and for getting to the point of working together, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
A year ago, you were the 420th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I had to fail Glik v. Cunniffe because no attempt was made to fix any issues with the article or reply to any concerns. If you return to editing feel free to nominate the article once more. If you wish, you may contact me and I will review the article once more after nomination.--WillC 15:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Glik v. Cunniffe
The article Glik v. Cunniffe you nominated as a good article has failed 
; see Talk:Glik v. Cunniffe for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wrestlinglover -- Wrestlinglover (talk) 15:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Idaho v. United States
The article Idaho v. United States you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Idaho v. United States for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Montanabw -- Montanabw (talk) 18:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
April 2014 GA Thanks
On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to thank you for your editorial contributions to People v. Aguilar.
| This user helped promote People v. Aguilar to good article status. |
.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Precious and missed
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Notification of a June AfC BackLog Drive
Hello GregJackP:
WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from June 1, 2014 to June 30, 2014.
Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 2400 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!
An SPI
You are mentioned and may have an interest in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ChildofMidnight. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 20:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: I did not know until now that you had retired. My regrets. This SPI incidentally has a bearing on the behavior you signaled. Either way, all the best: your contributions are still appreciated. Drmies (talk) 20:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Credo
Hello! You have received preliminary approval for access to Credo. Please fill out this short form so that your access can be processed. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
A beer for you!
|
Congrats on the degree! Montanabw(talk) 00:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC) |
Precious again
justice for indigenous peoples
Thank you for quality articles for projects Indigenous peoples of North America and Law, such as Ex parte Crow Dog and United States v. Lara, and for getting to the point of working together, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Two years ago, you were the 420th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)