User talk:KCinDC

Welcome!

Hello, KCinDC, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --Edcolins (talk) 20:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message: I don't believe that detailed election results with lists of all candidates and vote results belong in any officeholder unless it has a large influence on that officeholder's political history (e.g., the U.S. Presidential elections of 2000). Having a separate article for the Washington, D.C. elections of a particular year is fine, but embedding it every politician's article will make for really long, cluttered articles (not to mention the potential for having inconsistent data). Breaking off into a separate article also offers the opportunity to cover more general issues of that particular election: main bickering issues, usual political allegations, voter apathy, and the usual political season stuff. =)

With Carol Schwartz, is it really necessary to know that she lost the mayoral election of 1986 61% to 33%? It's better off to have an article on the entire 1996 election instead of embedding it.

The use of embedded tables as makes other officeholder's articles inconsistent with everybody else. An example of that is Harold Brazil.

As for your question about who to ask for additional feedback, I wouldn't necessarily as WikiProject DC as election results are not just a regional issue, but a Wikipedia wide issue. I would suggestion WikiProject Politics

But, that's just my opinion. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Gogo Dodo's opinion that detailed election results do clutter articles. But I disagree that each election should have its own Wikipedia article. Elections in the District generally receive little coverage in local media (at least in reliable sources). Articles for most District elections would have too little reliably sourced material to make such an article worthwhile.

In my opinion, knowing that Carol Schwartz received 33% of the vote in the 1986 election is noteworthy. Less than 10% of District residents are registered Republicans, yet Republican Schwartz received 33% of the vote.

Election results are present in other Wikipedia articles on politicians. To name a few, see Senator Hutchison (R-TX), Senator Murkowski (R-AK), Senator Mikulski (D-MD), and New York's Senator Clinton (D-NY). (Of course there are also examples of politicians' articles where results are not present.) I believe the results are important to the article to show the winning or losing margins and listing opposing candidates.

Perhaps, as a compromise, we can omit listing the votes received by candidates who received less than, say, 5% of the vote. For example, we can individually list candidates receiving more than 5% of the vote, followed by "other candidates 3%".

Thoughts? Quacks Like a Duck (talk) 15:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there are reliable sources for the election history section of a politician's article, there are reliable sources for an article on the election. The election article doesn't have to be huge. I'm concerned about the duplication and possible inconsistency of having the same election results in multiple articles, when several notable politicians were running. Admittedly, we're still a long way from having decent articles for many D.C. politicians (those that aren't stubs mostly have problems), so adding a bunch of election articles may be overambitious.

In any case, if we're going to have tables I think it would look better to have actual columns. I've been thinking of changing them, but have stalled on the question of whether to make a template for it. I haven't found an existing election box template that works well (a lot of them have a UK-specific "swing" column). —KCinDC (talk) 16:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the delay in writing back. Quacks Like a Duck's message to me got lost in my talk page. Anyways, I think some election results can be useful, but the current form on Carol Schwartz is far too long and too hard to read. The examples given by Quacks Like a Duck have much more compact tables that do not dominant the length of the article.

I might bow out of further discussion about this because my interest in politics is fleeting at best and I'm nowhere near Washington, D.C. so my awareness of local politics is limited. I probably shouldn't have been so hasty in deleting the section and I apologize for that. Coming from an outside point of view on the first visit to the article, it just struck me as way too long. But, if you still wish to hear my opinion about the issue further, please feel free to give me a nudge. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I don't think we can use that more compact table format for DC politicians, because the important election is usually the primary, which often has many candidates running, so displaying the candidates in columns rather than rows would produce tables that are too wide. I agree that something should be done. —KCinDC (talk) 13:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why, but I didn't catch that when I looked at it. If you haven't already, I will readd it. Sorry for the goof-up. Take Care and Have a Good Week Ahead...NeutralHomer • Talk 02:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I appreciate your helpful message and immediately corrected the "D. C./D.C." error. In my aspiration to follow Wikipedia's naming conventions for individuals (spaces between initials in main title headers such as W. A. Cleveland and O. A. Hankner), I occasionally misapply the rule to such obvious non-space examples as "D.C." and "U.S.". Regarding your first point, the article on the college coach William Spaulding was created on July 21, 2006, two years before the July 29, 2008 debut of the entry on the Washington, D.C. elected official. Since the main header for the earlier Spaulding gave him a middle initial, without including a redirect to the name without the initial, there was no impediment to your later creation of an entry entitled simply, "William Spaulding". As for the creation of a disambiguation page from the primary target, those, as you know, are the exception rather than the rule, used only when the primary target is a highly prominent individual, such as George Washington or John Ford (a recent disambiguation page controversy on Talk:Jonathan Edwards, is continuing to equate the influential historical figure Jonathan Edwards with a same-named track and field star). Finally, the matter of the two-person disambiguation page. Over my years on Wikipedia, I have been a believer in the efficacy of the hatnote. However, as those brief disambiguation pages proliferated, I decided to join the trend rather than fight it (you can see my February 2008 failed attempt to dismantle the one-person disambiguation page for Myrna Williams in the link at Talk:Myrna Williams). Moreover, some editors apparently feel that there is an implied greater prominence accorded to the earlier-created (usually, although not in the case of William Spaulding) article which then directs the reader, via the hatnote, to the "inferior" or "less-prominent" other individual. The most obvious example of a seemingly-unavoidable two-person disambiguation page presented itself (between June 14, 2003 and August 7, 2004) to readers who, instead of entering George H. W. Bush or George W. Bush, typed simply George Bush, although a number of other, related and unrelated, individuals with that name have since been added.—Roman Spinner (talk) 20:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the delay in this follow-up message. I tested it on my talk page 10 hours ago, but, in the process of transferring it to your page, my connection failed. Now restored, I am appending it below and hope it is helpful in providing additional detail:

• Numerous editors have used middle initials to disambiguate political figures (and other individuals) who bear frequently-used names, but unless the individual in question is well known by the middle initial (e.g. Harry S. Truman, Richard M. Nixon, Edward G. Robinson), it doesn't appear appropriate to force an unknown or little-known middle initial into the main title header. Political figures, especially, have been traditionally identified by their home states or bases (e.g. John Edwards (Kentucky), John Edwards (New York), John Edwards (Pennsylvania), John Edwards (Arkansas) and the unnecessarily double-disambiguated John S. Edwards (Virginia)). That was the reasoning I used in renaming the article "William Spaulding (Washington, D.C.)", rather than using the already-existing redirect, "William R. Spaulding" (due to the creation of the disambiguation page, I reoriented the "William R." redirect to point specifically to the renamed "(Washington, D.C.)" page). As for the guideline regarding spacing of initials, it is found at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)#Middle names - abbreviations of names. For years, the policy was "every abbreviation is followed by a point, and every point is followed by a single space". However, on December 16, 2007, this edit and subsequent edits, made the policy dependent on individual cases. There is also a lengthy discussion on the subject at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#Initials.—Roman Spinner (talk) 14:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to your comment and subsequently removed the section. You can see it as it last was here. The section is a clear WP:BLP non-article space violation unless and until the allegation can be sourced. The mention of the allegation on the talk page, in fact, led one rogue editor to say he was adding it back into the article regardless of the lack of any reliable sources. Please don't call my WP:BLP vigilance "heavy handed" or "mindless." The policy doesn't exist for posterity.   user:j    (aka justen)   16:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for using the word "mindless", but I do think that this edit, for instance, was going too far — though as I said, it's understandable. I think your policy of removing every mention of the pregnancy as a BLP violation and not allowing any discussion of how to handle the situation will only lead to even more attempts to insert it into the talk page. And I doubt that rigue editor needed the talk page mention to prompt him to add it. But I won't be online much longer today, so we'll see how things develop. —KCinDC (talk) 17:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern, but the reality is that there need not be any discussion of how to handle the situation. It's a blatant WP:BLP violation until there's a reliable source. Every "discussion" of it has led someone to add it back, without any reliable sourcing. More attempts to insert it, to the article or the talk page, should be removed, unless and until it can be sourced.   user:j    (aka justen)   17:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed it was an accidental edit, but his remarks gave me doubts, and the attack pushed it over the top for me. I'll take a look into that. Cool Hand Luke 19:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to say this again without the insulting references to dittoheads, Dailykos gutter trash and evil Obama supporters. If you were trying to be ironic or funny, that comes across poorly in text-based communications.--chaser - t 04:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't important enough to rewrite it. I'm sorry if you were offended. I assumed the quotation marks, the fact that I was using phrases used by others in the same discussion (have you deleted those comments as well? they were serious), and the fact that I was "attacking" both sides made it obvious that I wasn't intending to insult anyone. My point was that I'd've expected those editors motivated by partisanship to have recognized that their interests were reversed from the sides they were supporting over the weekend. —KCinDC (talk) 04:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's the only thing I removed. I appreciate your understanding how these things can be misinterpreted. It's just that we have enough real fights without unintentionally starting new ones. Cheers.--chaser - t 05:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the number of snarky comments from Kelly (and some of those on the left as well), I'd think you'd have your hands full with him alone if you're going to delete inflammatory comments. Not sure why my comment was singled out, but these things happen. —KCinDC (talk) 05:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly that I noticed your comment as it hit the talk page. It's more effective to remove things before anybody's seen them. I'm sorry if I'm making you feel singled out.--chaser - t 05:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean about other comments, but they're so old as to be inconsequential at this point. I just started reading this talk page a couple of hours ago.--chaser - t 05:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KCinDC, What is unreliable about Newsweek or The New York Times or The San Jose Mercury News or the testimony of people who used to work for the CIA or the History Channel? How are you going to say that these sources are unreliable? The Wallstreet Underground was a very respected journal that published its version of events and was never once sued for libel in the publication of this story. There is even a sandbox of it's author, Nicholas Guarino which is of much interest. I ask you what is wrong with my sources and you say things like, "It was decided.", not why or how. You are either not doing your job of researching the information (which I was busy filling with more reliable information when I got this reaction) or you will not tell me why my sources are not reliable. How much time have you bothered to research this? Have you bothered to look up the name Gary Webb or Bobby Seal? Do you know who they are? The facts are facts and cannot be objectively proven to be negative. There are falsehoods in the version you have published and it is outrageous. Shelly Kelly did not die in the accident. Have you heard about the plane that Hillary loaned Obama after her Bobby Kennedy comments and after she conceded his victory? Did you know that it almost crashed? By silencing the truth, you are making this world a more dangerous place. Thrutheseasons —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thrutheseasons (talk • contribs) 21:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was in the process of linking everything before I was shut down. Newsweek is cited for the shredding of the documents. I can document the shredding in New York Times as well. It was admitted that there was shredding. The shredding happened as soon as he died. I did not mention Bobby Seal or Gary Webb in the article, but if you were to research these people, you would see the type of scandal which again was shut down because of the deaths of the witnesses. Bobby Seal and Gary Webb are relevant because they implicated the Clintons directly and indirectly to Mena, Arkansas, another of the Clinton plagued scandals. It is mathematically impossible for there to be this many natural deaths of witnesses and it is worth mentioning that so many people died who did know things. I would never put that claim in the article on Wikipedia because there is no room for that kind of implication on Wikipedia, but the facts around Ron Brown death need to be detailed. I remember at the time of the accident seeing the video of Shelly Kelly and reports of her as well being the sole survivor as well as reading recently articles that were written about her, and that there was a coroner's report. She is even mentioned in the Wikipedia version of the accident. I'm sure there is a reference there. I bet I can find them in minutes. I was busy linking these sources when I was shut down. I'm sorry that you have this shocked reaction and that your reaction is more important than finding reliable and verifiable evidence. I have now spent the last few hours defending myself rather than putting the references together. Maybe, this would be best for sandbox for the reason that I am not allowed to finish putting the references together. The feeling that something is controversial is another unscientific, and completely subjective point of view which stymies good research. It is Shelly Kelly not Shelley Kelley. My original mistake. I am new to this so maybe I couldn't get the references down fast enough.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Thrutheseasons (talk • contribs) 21:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Original research means finding new sources that are not already documented through reliable and verifiable information from the time. If I can post a reference to the coroner's report in a reputable journal from that time, why can't I post it? It is not original to me. It is a fact that the Clintons were scandal plagued and that should be mentioned. Ron Brown was just one of many. It is not my job to accuse people of anything, but to present the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thrutheseasons (talk • contribs) 22:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that you are willing to keep a falsehood on your site when it would take only a short time to find out via google that it is patently false.Thrutheseasons —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thrutheseasons (talk • contribs) 22:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you made a number of edits that can be considered reverts on Gwen Ifill [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] some of them even explicitly marked in the edit summary as rv, or remove etc. Hobartimus (talk) 05:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those fall under one of the exceptions to 3RR (much like many of your past edits to Sarah Palin): "Reverting the addition of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material which violates the policy on biographies of living persons." But I will try to be more careful in the future. Thanks. —KCinDC (talk) 05:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I always had trouble with those exceptions, I really think the policy should be somehow rewritten or amended to make it more clear cut. For example on Sarah Palin it happened countless times, someone cites the BLP in a pretty straightforward manner which would as we know provide an exception for reverting and then opponents jump in and start debating if it's applicable or not creating doubt. Policy should be more clear, less debateable. Hobartimus (talk) 20:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean, but I think there will always be arguable points. Even which edits count as reverts can be arguable. One thing I find frustrating is that because 3RR applies to an entire article rather than a single point it can be difficult to be sure you haven't violated it when you're editing a longish article that's being edited hundreds of times in a day. The rule isn't well designed for situations where an article is being swarmed with people trying to push points into it. But I guess it's been working well enough for quite a while. —KCinDC (talk) 20:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was not my intent to be hostile, I'm sorry if you felt it that way, I anticipated a possible Afd, but was caught very off-guard by a merge proposal and first didn't see any possible reason why that could be suggested. Hobartimus (talk) 06:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your rewording near "spurred". Good work! Thanks for correcting my wording; I like yours much better. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 21:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wasn't that happy with my wording. It was just a quick fix to remove the inappropriate "spurred". Feel free to revise. —KCinDC (talk) 21:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to do the rename now, I'm putting up a couple of redirects so I could put the new name in if you gonna do it soon. Hobartimus (talk) 05:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'm going to sleep now. I wasn't going to move anything until I was sure everyone was okay with it. Feel free to move it yourself if you want. —KCinDC (talk) 05:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is an objection already about the capitalization :) and I thought it was pretty uncontroversial... Hobartimus (talk) 05:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to worry about the capitalization objection. It's moved. —KCinDC (talk) 21:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching my misswording concerning NPOV. As to the substance ... I do not want to belabor the point, but consider this comment:

Day to day stuff in a BLP? Nope. It is a campaign topic, and only belongs in articles directly and completely concerned with such stuff. If the details will be of no interest in 10 years in a BLP, keep it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Collect (talk • contribs) 17:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

This editor is evoking the aura of significant/insignificant, but the way he is doing it is by invoking BIO to suggest that this article is a "biography" article and therefore non-biographical content does not belong. My view is that Palin is most notable (in the BIO sense) because she is running for veep so material directly bearing on her campaign, if it is significant in relation to her campaign, belongs. But believe me there are editors who want one article (this one) to be a personal biography and farm out the politics into other articles; one editor (Paul) even suggested that all Palin's statements about Obama belong in the article on the McCain campaign!. This is POV-forking masquerading as content-forking and it is a real problem at the Palin article. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but I don't think that your disagreement there is about notability. And I don't agree that it's unreasonable to argue that updates on day-to-day political comments might not be significant to an article about Sarah Palin but might be significant in an article about the McCain-Palin campaign. I've been making similar arguments about the expanding controversy section in the Gwen Ifill article and how some of it is more significant for the debate article than for Ifill's (and some may not be significant enough for either). At some point there's a limit to how much detail a point merits in a particular article, and reasonable people can disagree about where that is, but I think whether the article is about a person or an event makes a difference in deciding where the line is for a detail within an event. —KCinDC (talk) 21:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. But I am tired of having gone back and forth on this with the editor in question (collect) and a few others. Obviously not every single mention of Palin en every news outlet goes into the article. I myself have stated several times that we should wait to see if something is in the news for at least a few days and reported in more than one national news outlet. I feel I have expressed this position clearly and several times. Nevertheless, several editors, like collect, Paul, Zsero, and others use this rhetoric when in fact they are opposing any mention of any contentious but significant campaign issue in the article, and they always ultimately fall back on "if it is in the news it is trivial" (when the opposite is true; when writing an article on a current event - i.e. someone running for veep - stuff that makes the national news and stays in the news is indeed significant) OR they say this is not appropriate for a "biography article" which is simply inventing a non-existent policy to justify excluding relevant significant verifiable content from a reliable source. Do you really disagree with me? If so, so be it. If you agree with me but feel the point could be communicated more clearly or effectively, by all means, go for it! Slrubenstein | Talk 21:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I confess I have not followed every twist and turn of the Sarah Palin discussions, and some of the pro-Palin editors bug me as well, but I don't believe you're going to come up with a hard and fast formulation that's going to prevent the arguments. Whether something in the news is significant enough to include in the article is always going to be a judgment call. I don't think I agree that an article on a politician running for office is the same as an article on a current event, especially when there is a separate article on their run for office, in which cases events in the campaign would seem to be more significant to the campaign article than to the articles of the politicians involved (though certainly some events may be significant enough to go in a politician's article as well). —KCinDC (talk) 22:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

for reverting the vandalism to my user page. Cheers! DoubleBlue (Talk) 05:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same to you! —KCinDC (talk) 05:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! In working through some speedy deletions, I see you've put a nice message warning some of the newbies about making autobiographies. (See User talk:Marcus black1 for an example.) I'm assuming this is a template you've substituted -- mind pointing me towards it so I can make use of it as well? Thanks much!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I just found it yesterday. It's {{welcome-auto}}. You can put the article name in as an optional parameter. —KCinDC (talk) 04:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A belated thanks!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, my pleasure. Thanks for your message. Sardanaphalus (talk) 04:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it was decided to only do DC; I had no specific beef with you removing Chevy Chase, just that it should be all or nothing. :) --Golbez (talk) 14:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I was too hasty, and I wouldn't have removed it if I'd noticed the others. Of course, if they're going to stay, then the intro sentence needed to be changed. —KCinDC (talk) 14:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guru-da-Gaddi is an important occasion of Sikh Religion. This is very very important time when the tenth Guru had stated that the next Guru is the Holy Sikh Book "Guru Granth sahib". I don't feel such an artcile should be deleted. Rest is Wikipedia policy. It is recommended that Sikh Scholars may be consulted on the subject. I am proud that I tried to create an article on the subject.It may not be deleted. Bole so Nihal Sat sri akaalSanjivkumarsharma (talk) 17:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talk page and Talk:Guru-da-Gaddi. —KCinDC (talk) 17:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also not able to understand the above. But you can very well understand that today, the day of start of celebrations, has been declared a holiday by Governments of Indian state of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory of Chandigarh.Sanjivkumarsharma (talk) 18:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clear up any misunderstanding from your PROD notice, I did not create the article content for Víctor E Reviglio. As the history indicates on Víctor Reviglio and Víctor E Reviglio, the Víctor Reviglio article content was moved to that title after another editor usurped the existing article and then the original content was restored. When posting PROD notices for editors, please look at the article history so that the proper author of the article can be notified. In this case, that would be User_talk:Nationsguard, who may have an interest in the deletion. (To the extent that it matters, I happened to agree with the deletion of Víctor E Reviglio in its current state, but as an involved party who restored the original article, it did not seem appropriate for me to pursue the matter further). -- Michael Devore (talk) 05:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I thought I would let you know that Office robbery, which you had proposed for deletion, was deprodded by 70.232.80.232 with no explanation. Maethordaer (talk) 14:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. I looked at several other newspaper articles and found no real consensus. Some with "The" in the masthead have it in the article title while others don't. The ones that don't have "the" as part of the wiki article title tend to have it less prominently featured in the masthead or were smaller, lesser-known papers. Perhaps I jumped the gun here on this one. If you feel it would be better to change it back to "The Record-Courier (Nevada)" since "The" is prominently featured in the masthead according to the website, by all means do and I won't revert it. --JonRidinger (talk) 15:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally. My apologies. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 17:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

could you please state the reason for blanking this page i am sure this constitutes as vandalism?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.18.180 (talk) 08:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are you referring to? I didn't blank anything. I added a category and changed a stub template to be more specific. In fact, no one has ever blanked the page, though Marasmusine (talk · contribs) does seem to have removed some content. —KCinDC (talk) 15:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Svp - je ne fais pas un stir, je raconte simplement l'histoire car l'histoire l'a jugée. Le poids de la langue sur mon dos presse comme une meule. Cahiers du jason (talk) 15:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am trying to create my user page User_talk:Siddhartha.lahiri. But its marked for deletion. Please let me know what can be done. —Preceding undated comment added 08:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC).

DC Meetup 21 - Who should come? You should. Really.
	DC MEETUP 21 is July 29! This meet up will involve Wikipedians from the area as well as Wiki-loving GLAM professionals. See you Friday! SarahStierch (talk) 16:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine Art Edit-a-Thon & Meetup - Who should come? You should. Really.

FINE ART EDIT-A-THON & DC MEETUP 26 is December 17! The Edit-a-Thon will cover fine art subjects from the Federal Art Project and the meet up will involve Wikipedians from the area as well as Wiki-loving GLAM professionals. You don't have to attend both to attend one (but we hope you do!) Click the link above and sign up & spread the word! See you there! SarahStierch (talk) 20:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, fellow Wikipedian!

I am excited to announce the upcoming Wikimedia DC Annual Meeting at the National Archives! We'll have free lunch, an introduction by Archivist of the United States David Ferriero, and a discussion featuring Ed Summers, the creator of CongressEdits. Join your fellow DC-area Wikipedians on Saturday, October 18 from 12 to 4:30 PM. RSVP today!

Also coming up we have the Human Origins edit-a-thon on October 17 and the WikiSalon on October 22. Hope to see you at our upcoming events!

Best,

James Hare

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 08:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 02:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 03:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 18:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

To unsubscribe from this newsletter, remove your name from this list. 02:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

To remove yourself from this mailing list, remove your name from this list. 22:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

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) 16:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, KCinDC. 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)[reply]

Hello, KCinDC. 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)[reply]

Hello, KCinDC. 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)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, since you have recently edited 2020 United States House of Representatives elections, 2018 United States House of Representatives elections, or 2016 United States House of Representatives elections, I am inviting you to an ongoing discussion taking place at Talk:2020 United States House of Representatives elections#RFC on inclusion of House elections. Orser67 (talk) 23:58, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]