User talk:TortoiseWrath/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

CLEANSTART

This account was formed as a CLEANSTART from User:Doggitydogs. TortoiseWrath (talk) 21:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

RfA

Perhaps I misunderstood you but when I saw this diff I saw it as you saying you hoped that the RfA would be closed soon but werent aware you could withdraw your own RfA. at any rate I dont advise starting it up again if you want constructive criticism because you can get that by just asking for it directly or starting an Editor review. As for your question in the response to Oppose #3, that's a lot harder to answer. Adminship isn't necessary to be helpful. If you want to be admin, that's a worthy goal to strive for, but people need to realize they can trust you, and for that they'll want more than just a few hundred good edits. —Soap— 04:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

That wasn't exactly what I was going for there (I did, in fact, know that I could withdraw; see this diff). However, I was aware from the beginning that that would most likely work out with a SNOW closure, but I went for it anyway just in case there was some chance someone would decide I was far enough along here to be trusted. In hindsight, I recognize that I may not have made it clear enough that all (aka both) of my "improper" edits (which seemed to be a concern) were made 5–6 years ago, one of which was made when I as literally half my current age.

Trust me, I don't by any means take offense to that closure, and I'm certainly aware that helpfulness is possible without adminship, hence my recognition of my 452 previous edits' non-futility; I do, however, think that there's no argument against that it is possible to be more helpful with adminship.

I had actually considered submitting that RfA on April 1, just so that I could say it was a joke when it was closed. ;)

 — TORTOISEWRATH 04:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• Hi there, please do not add comments to closed discussions, as you have done in your RFA. Regards, GiantSnowman 11:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, TortoiseWrath. You have new messages at TortoiseWrath's talk page.
Message added 02:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 — TORTOISEWRATH 02:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Test edit

I am posting to my own talk page anonymously in an attempt to get my notification bar to do something exciting. 64.139.115.105 (talk) 04:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

It worked, and with surprising success in its effectiveness of attention captivity obtainment. A+ to creator of utility.  — TORTOISEWRATH 04:09, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

X

hey.... you look immature, is that so? bye.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.19.30 (talk) 02:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

BWAHAHAHA this made my day  — TORTOISEWRATH 03:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges. A full list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on will be at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

Beeblebrox (talk) 17:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

The Wikipedia Manual of Style requires literal quoting. See MOS:LQ for more information. Thanks. Slowlikemolasses (talk) 04:09, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I determined this just after reverting those edits and going to your talk page and looking at its history. Thank you for indirectly enlightening me.  — TORTOISEWRATH 04:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Dinitrogen oxide may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Don Touhig

All of what I posted was true. I will get other people who were there to keep re-adding it from different IP addresses, which is something that is well within reach. It's not defamation if it's true, regardless of how controversial it is. I want Don to see his page, and see what is going on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.144.139.99 (talk) 03:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I understand what you're trying to do, but content added to Wikipedia, especially to biographies of living persons, must be backed up by reliable, cited sources. If you're not sure how to do this, please give me a list of places you have seen this information online and if these sources are reliable, I will add the information to the article for you.  — TORTOISEWRATH 03:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

TortoiseWrath, we moved your Teahouse host profile

Hello TortoiseWrath! Thank you for being a host at the Teahouse. However, we haven't heard from you lately, so our bot has moved your Host profile from the host landing page to the host breakroom. No worries; you can always just Check in and our bot will move your profile back. Editing any Teahouse-related page will do the same thing for you. If you would prefer not to receive reminders like this, you can unsubscribe here. Thanks for your help at the Teahouse! HostBot (talk) 03:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thanks for that. DivaKnockouts 00:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	This works better. Anyways, GAME OVER. DivaKnockouts 00:25, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ray Charles 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.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

World Clock

http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/city.html?n=280

It is the 21st. We set the new date at approximately 6 AM on the US East Coast every day (Noon throughout Europe). Please dont undo in the future. Thanks. Sunnydoo (talk) 18:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry; I thought the date headings on RD ran on UTC (where it is the 20th), just as WP:ITNC does.  — TORTOISEWRATH 18:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem. Its a manual set. The reason is that every once in a while we would get an immediate death (that is someone remarkably famous that the news goes out on right away) out of Australia or New Zealand that would throw the date system sideways. It doesnt happen very often, but often enough that it is a problem. So we have just adopted a system where it is set daily when the first UTC zone goes past midnight. It gets interesting at various times of the year because of Daylight Savings, but we seem to have that straightened out now (knock on wood). Anyhoo, no harm no foul, just wanted to let you know the reasoning. Keep on keeping on. Sunnydoo (talk) 18:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Trouted

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

I have chosen to be trouted for suggesting that policies may override the pillars, which is clearly not the case. Also for that advertising I put in back in 2007 before I knew any better and that wasn't reverted until two years later because it was on a (relevant) page that nobody ever visited. And for that other time when I did something stupid. I don't remember what that was, but I'm sure it happened. Oh, right; also for self-nominating for adminship with, like, 200 edits. That was one of the most absurd things I've done in any context in my life.  — TORTOISEWRATH 04:16, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Help Please

Hi,

You dinged me for editing my own entry - I did not mean to violate the terms of wikipedia editing. Please help me, I need the issue on my page fixed. I need to have the facts corrected, I am NOT married and it is causing me problems with my fiance (I don't know why she cares so much but I promised I would try to fix it.)

Since this is a factual error it doesn't seem like a conflict to correct it? How do I go about doing that?

The second issue is that my children are mentioned on the page and they are minors, and I need them removed.

Thanks for either helping me or directing me to someone who can.

(Richard Garfield)Angryangrymouse (talk) 00:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

This isn't my area of expertise, but I can try to help you through this. First of all, is there some way we can verify that you are, in fact, Richard Garfield? I know that being asked to prove that you are yourself can be awkward and confusing, but I'd like you to try to see it from my perspective.

Second, in order for information to be added to an article in contradiction to the older information of your former marriage, we'll need a proper statement that you have been divorced (or whatever happened). This would preferably be posted to something that is known to be a website/blog of yours, but if you don't have one or you're not comfortable with that, see if you can get any third-party that is seen as a reliable source to publish this information. If worse comes to worst, you might be able to get away with publishing this information to your user page on Wikipedia, but that wouldn't go over well as a proper source for this information.

As for the names of your children, they've been removed from the article at this time (and there have been some minor adjustments made to the wording of that section) by a Wikipedia editor known as The Devil's Advocate. However, there's unfortunately little that can be done to keep them off the article, because:

• The article feels more complete with this information; stating that the children exist but not saying their names seems weird to most readers
• Your children's names have already been published outside of Wikipedia, at sites such as Magic Rarities and Wizards of the Coast. These pages are cited in the Wikipedia article.
• This information is valid for inclusion in a Wikipedia article, and is known to be true and relevant.
• There is no legal reason in the United States, where Wikipedia's servers are located, why these names cannot be published.

Depending on what exactly your concern is with this information's inclusion on Wikipedia, you may be able to request an office action on the part of the Wikimedia Foundation, the parent company of Wikipedia, by emailing legalwikimedia.org. Keep in mind that office actions are made public and their small quantity and great publicity can result in manifestation of the Streisand effect.

Best of luck to you.  — TORTOISEWRATH 01:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your detailed response - it clarifies a lot. Would a facebook page that I keep for my fans be acceptable for mentioning my engagement? It seems out of place on my business website [1]. If I gave you such a link could you fix the information?

With regards to the kids, you have explained why it is tough to keep the names off - and I will decide what to do about that. I wasn't aware where the law stood on including minors information but I know my experience with other Media (Newspaper, TV) has been that they are very willing not to include information on kids at my request, and I am unused to being unable to control that - and it is a father's prerogative to be concerned about such things. Even though the information is out there - of course it makes a big difference if it is on the Wizards archives or in the New York Times or Wikipedia. Also there is a very special concern with Wikipedia - people have, in the past, put up the information on the kids that was way over the line - like schools attended. We suspect it is often their friends that do it because they know the kids and lack the discretion, but still - it is a concern you don't face with the New York Times, and would be significantly decreased if they looked at the page and saw no mention of kids - or better yet - no family section at all.

I also understand that this New York Times and Wikipedia are not apples to apples for many reasons, and there is probably nothing you can do with the previous paragraph, but it is nice to express it.Angryangrymouse (talk) 17:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that a Facebook post would suffice for this. I'll do what I can to keep your kids' names off the article, but I can't make any promises.  — TORTOISEWRATH 20:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I am still around! Thanks, I will give you a link when I have figured out how I want to announce it. Angryangrymouse (talk) 17:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey Tortoise Wrath, the WP:ALIVE page says that biographies of living people have to be treated very carefully with regard to privacy. Let's just leave the family section out. Leadwind (talk) 01:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

We've already removed the children's names, which is what that policy seems to recommend. From an encyclopedic standpoint, the fact that they are minors doesn't make a difference, and the statements are relevant and sourced. IIRC I removed the section, but someone put it back in because there wasn't any real reason to remove it, with which I agree.  — TORTOISEWRATH 01:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The matter has come up at at the BLP noticeboard. The removal of the personal section has been made by editors with a great deal of experience with WP:BLP issues. In particular, it is not true that if something has a reliable source, it automatically is appropriate to include it in an article. (If this were true, WP:BLP would not be such a lengthy policy.) Please keep in mind that real people can be significantly hurt by what is published in Wikipedia about them; this is not just a matter of technicalities to them. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 04:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

That's not what I'm trying to say; as I said, I was in favor of removing the information, but I had to make sure that User:Angryangrymouse was actually Richard Garfield (because otherwise anyone could force anything off the encyclopedia, which could lead to some hairy situations). I did remove the children's names, because I didn't see a need for them, but the other information seemed relevant—after all, we have that information about practically everyone else. I feared the Streisand effect, and I advised the requesting user to do the same. I fully respect his wishes, and I'm most certainly not about to revert any edits removing that information. (I thought I had done so, but looking back, I did not).  — TORTOISEWRATH 04:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

It sounds like you were trying to be helpful, while - admittedly - working in a gray area: balancing privacy issues versus informing readers. The relevant part of WP:BLP is this, I think:

"The names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject."

In this case, my personal feeling (and, I think, that of other editors) is that the personal information does not add much to the biography, and thus it's okay to use editorial discretion to remove it.

Again, this is a gray area, and I've probably erred myself on this, but it's probably best to just be bold and take out such information and see if anyone objects.

With regard to asking someone for confirmation of identity: that's usually not done by individual editors, though I'm not sure what the official process is. In any case, it's really rare for someone to pretend to be someone else and ask for personal information to be removed (what would be the point?); arguably it's best in such a situation to proceed as if the claimed identity is true.

All of which is to say that there isn't any clear lesson to be learned here, other than perhaps this: When you run into an unusual situation that doesn't have a clear answer, it may be best to ask for suggestions at the relevant noticeboard, or, if unsure, at the Help desk. That's particularly true for BLP issues. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 05:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

TortoiseWrath, I'm sorry if I came across as complaining or accusatory. You've obviously been trying to help. It looks as though things are settled now. Leadwind (talk) 13:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Maps

I have responded to your question on my talk page. Shereth 15:06, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I will have to jump in to give some color guideline tricks ! Yug (talk) 19:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

See Commons:Template:SVG locator maps (location map scheme)/cat ! Or maybe you already use this guideline ! :D --Yug (talk) 19:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I've been discussing the WikiProject Maps color scheme used there with Shereth and the community at my proposal and User talk:Shereth#Re: map update for 2010 census. The consensus at this time seems to be sticking with the simpler, older color scheme, but I've been working on implementing the guidelines to a lesser extent that Ixnay and Shereth have.  — TORTOISEWRATH 20:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Please create or share a project page such as /US cities census (2010).

I would also suggest your to organize the page as other guidelines.

An introduction explaining the style objectives and the most convenient way to create a such map.
A color summary table with two (up-to-date) map examples.
The file naming convention for upload, and other advice (mainly: scale, legend).
An up-to-date SVG template.
Further details on history, limits, and possible expansions.
A gallery of examples.

I would be able to help :) Wikipedia:WikiProject_Maps/US_locations is what I was looking for!

For the color-scheme, note that the author of the former CIA based colorscheme you use (if I remember well), user:Planemad, admitted his style was made quickly for one project, and with no enough thinking to be a general guideline. On the other hand, the Location_maps is from long talks, agreed by groups of map makers, and with massive projects already. See de:Wikipedia:Kartenwerkstatt/Positionskarten for the background, and commons:Template:SVG_locator_maps_(location_map_scheme)/cat for locator maps. To keep projects alignments and reduce surprises for readers let's use as much as possible these already widespread schemes. Yug (talk) 18:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there seems to be a (small) consensus that the CIA-based maps are preferable for the context of these census location maps, because they make the locations of the towns more obvious, rather than cluttering the map with miscellany. I was hoping to incorporate both schemes into my maps.

I had to take a hiatus from the project due to real-life problems, but I've been thinking about it again recently, and I hope to have it up and running again by the end of the month.  — TORTOISEWRATH 15:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Small concensus which didn't include the German cartographer team (the largest), nor the French team, nor the 3rd other large push commons. That's not a big deal, all this will likely be merge in some years. But would be better to keep projects stylistically unified until then. Yug (talk) 18:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

+there is indeed a conflict with urban areas if we use a more grey scheme. Yug (talk) 18:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I'am noticing your minimap respect our conventions. (or is really similar). So, may it be your convention is at a closer level ? Seems I will have to do a full matching of these conventions and each values... More importantly, your project is powerful and exiting. :) Yug (talk) 18:54, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

@Yug: I'll be unavailable for much of tomorrow (Tuesday, my time), but I'm going to collect up the project assets again and take the remaining questions (color schemes, etc.) to idea lab on Wednesday or Thursday.  — TORTOISEWRATH 21:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Current roadmap

1. Obtain consensus on map style (projection, colors, etc.)

   Estimated timeframe: 2-3 weeks, so until mid-July or so

2. Obtain consensus for page template format

   Estimated timeframe: a week or so

3. Set up updater-bot and get bot approved

   Estimated timeframe: 2-3 weeks, so until early August

4. Do a test run and fix any problems

   Shouldn't take long, I hope

5. Deploy the bot and update the pages

   Estimated timeframe: ???

I hope to have everything done by the end of the year. It's a large undertaking, especially now that we have stricter policies and guidelines than when Arkyan did it.  — TORTOISEWRATH 21:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Moving

TortoiseWrath

(cur | prev) 21:42, 22 June 2013‎ TortoiseWrath (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (2,189 bytes) (0)‎ . . (TortoiseWrath moved page Lì (chinese surname) to Lì (Chinese surname): This, at least, ought to be uncontroversial.) (undo | thank)

Given that you're arguing against WP:BRD in the RM, moving it from an unworkable title where there small c- has been commented on by Ajax Smack in supporting WP:BRD is in fact disruptive. It makes part of Ajax Smack's argument seem pointless. And who asked you to be the one to do this? Have you ever contributed to any China or surname article before? In ictu oculi (talk) 06:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

@In ictu oculi: I'm not sure that I understand what you're saying with "you're arguing against WP:BRD". Do you mean that I am saying that WP:BRD should not be used for some reason (which I'm not), or that I'm arguing in the face of a WP:BRD (in which case, that R seems to have been dropped somewhere)?

I didn't think that that move would affect User:AjaxSmack's argument, as I intended for it to remain clear that the original title of the article ("original" being used very loosely there). I'm sorry for any disruption this may have caused.

"Who asked you to be the one to do this?" Nobody. Nobody needed to.

"Have you ever contributed to any China or surname article before?" While I think I probably have at some point, I'm not going to dig up any specific examples, because that is irrelevant. My topical editing history has nothing to do with whether I should or should not correct obvious errors in the encyclopedia. WP:SOFIXIT.

I'll leave a message at your talk page.  — TORTOISEWRATH 17:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Whoops

My bad for wiping out your edit. Please do accept my apologies. Red Slash 08:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

@Red Slash: No problem. I likely would have done the same thing.  — TORTOISEWRATH 17:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

AA DCA-XNA flights

Flights are not bookable on September 5, 2013 or after. All flights go thru American Airlines hubs. Can you provide me a link or a flight number where it is nonstop. Snoozlepet (talk) 19:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

@Snoozlepet: Airlines often won't allow booking of flights that are not yet offered, even after the dates on which they are planning to start offering them, in case of a change of plans. I don't know what the original source was for this.  — TORTOISEWRATH 20:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

You probably accidently reverted my edit on the DCA page and restored it but I am not able to book flights on American Airlines's website (from September 5, 2013 or after) nor there was an official announcement of some sort for this route. Snoozlepet (talk) 20:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The "Li (surname)" saga.

Would appreciate your comments here after your recent participation in this discussion. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

TortoiseWrath, we moved your Teahouse host profile

Hello TortoiseWrath! Thank you for being a host at the Teahouse. However, we haven't heard from you lately, so our bot has moved your Host profile from the host landing page to the host breakroom. No worries; you can always just Check in and our bot will move your profile back. Editing any Teahouse-related page will do the same thing for you. If you would prefer not to receive reminders like this, you can unsubscribe here. Thanks for your help at the Teahouse! HostBot (talk) 03:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Create new article

Hola TortoiseWrath. I love hitchhiker's guide, I love your dog. That being said, I want to begin writing an article for creation in my sandbox, however, the last article I submitted - which has been accepted - is still in my sandbox. I'm confused about how I start a new article there. Thanks for any help. Final4one (talk) 13:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

"Wiki Loves Libraries" edit-athon in Vancouver, WA

	WIKI LOVES LIBRARIES 2013! You are invited to attend the upcoming "Wiki Loves Libraries" edit-athon. The event will be held from 2:30–4:30pm on Sunday, November 17, 2013 at the Vancouver Community Library (901 C Street) in Vancouver, Washington. The edit-athon will focus on creating and expanding articles related to Vancouver and Clark County. Details and signup here!

You are receiving this message because you are listed as an active member of WikiProjectOregon or WikiProject Washington. This message was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 15:09, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Get your cameras ready! Christmas in Oregon and PDX Pods

This month, WikiProject Oregon features two photo campaigns:

• PDX Pods
• Christmas in Oregon

The concept is simple: upload photos of these two topics and share your work! Whether you upload one or one hundred, these images will help capture the culture of our state and illustrate Wikimedia projects. Have fun, and happy holiday season! You are receiving this because you are listed as an active member of WikiProject Oregon or WikiProject Washington. This message was delivered on behalf of Wikipedia:Meetup/Portland by EdwardsBot (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Super Bowl Individual record

Hi, when listing an individual record, you put that player's team first Spparky (talk) 02:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of countries by English-speaking population may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shitty Watercolour, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alias (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Invitation: WikiProject Autism

Greetings! You are hereby invited to WikiProject Autism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of autism, Asperger syndrome, and autistic culture on Wikipedia. As the project emphasizes contribution from autistic editors, it is especially interested in you, who have chosen to list yourself at Category:Wikipedians with autism. Muffinator (talk) 20:51, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia ads	file info – #251

War in Donbass - 18 pending revisions

The War in Donbass article has 18 pending revisions. Could you review them, please, if possible?Mondolkiri1 (talk) 20:48, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Sigh...

It's pretty sad that you clearly didn't take the time to do research on whether these players pass WP:GNG before AFDing.--Yankees10 18:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Yankees10 There's a reason we have further notability guidelines, such as WP:NGRIDIRON, for various topics. They exist to elaborate on WP:GNG and provide clearer criteria for notability. There has to come a point where football players are not notable, and while I can confirm that the vast majority of these players will become notable in the future, there is no way to tell which ones at this point. We have no articles for Tavon Rooks (drafted 202nd overall, 2014), James Taylor (drafted 33rd overall, 1978), or the majority of other football players who have not in fact played in the NFL. Why do you believe this is so?  — TORTOISEWRATH 18:13, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Huh? Your reasoning here is terrible. Rooks and Taylor don't have articles because they have not played in a game true, but also do not have the COVERAGE. Spaight and others have enough coverage that it doesn't matter if they never play a down in the NFL.--Yankees10 18:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Martrell Spaight...you're kidding right? Clear GNG pass.--Yankees10 18:28, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

"Doing my job" So your "job" is too idiotically follow me around AFD'ing every article I am creating without doing a stitch of research to check if they are notable already? Seriously? I mean....seriously?--Yankees10 18:58, 2 May 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) 16:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, TortoiseWrath. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, TortoiseWrath. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, TortoiseWrath. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)