User talk:Darryl Kerrigan

Hello and welcome to my talk page.--Darryl

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Disputes at SNC-Lavalin affair and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:15, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not want to receive further notifications for this case, please remove yourself from this list. You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Canadian politics. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Canadian politics/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 7, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Canadian politics/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:00, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This message is to inform you that the proposed decision for the Canadian Politics Arbitration Case has been postponed to June 21 28, 2019. For the Arbitration Committee --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 16:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed remedy or finding of fact which relates to you has been posted in the Canadian politics arbitration case. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. The guide to arbitration may also be helpful. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 06:20, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't seen that anywhere. Can you link me? Safrolic (talk) 18:45, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Safrolic, you can find it here. It is under the heading "Talk:SNC-Lavalin affair#RfC: political scandal?"--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An arbitration case regarding Canadian politics has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Curly Turkey is prohibited from editing SNC-Lavalin affair and its talk page for a period of six months. This restriction may be appealed at WP:ARCA after three months.
2. Curly Turkey is warned that future violations of Wikipedia's conduct policies and guidelines, including WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:ASPERSIONS, may result in blocks or bans.
3. Curly Turkey, Darryl Kerrigan, Legacypac, Littleolive oil, PavelShk, Safrolic, and SWL36 are admonished for edit warring.
4. All editors are reminded to seek dispute resolution and to use appropriate resources, such as the dispute resolution noticeboard, for outside opinions and suggestions for resolving problems.

For the Arbitration Committee, SQL^{Query me!} 03:46, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Canadian politics closed

Hello, Darryl Kerrigan

Thank you for creating 2020 Green Party of British Columbia leadership election.

User:Vermont, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thank's for creating this article! Looks good, good secondary sourcing.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Vermont}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Vermont (talk) 02:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Darryl Kerrigan Can I ask for your advice? See: User:Davemoth/sandbox for my sandbox consensus finding entry in regard to Talk:2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries#Two_part_RfC_about_inclusion_criteria_for_listing_candidates_in_infoboxes

Should I publish at the end of the RfC or should it be a New Section?

Should I expand on my methods or thoughts or let editors evaluate on their own?

Do you have any other suggestions before I proceed?

Thanks --Davemoth (talk) 21:04, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Davemoth, thanks for doing this. Yes, I think a new section with a note in the RfC is the best way to go. That said, I don't think there is a good chance we get to a consensus without a formal close. I think we just need an uninvolved editor to read the room and tell us how it is. It is unfortunate that almost every election our past principles and guidelines on this seem to go out the window, and we spend an inordinate amount of time on this sort of thing. Eventually, a RfC occurs and then a resolution is postponed until the election is over, by which point, many of the editors who originally commented no longer care.

Here, unfortunately, it is unlikely everyone who has commented thus far is going to participate with the tool you have created, making it harder to argue a consensus was reached. Among those that will, there seems to be some disagreement. I think a formal close will prove necessary, unless either Biden or Bernie suspend their campaigns and endorse the other. Once the campaign is effectively over, I expect there will be more openness to having all "significant" candidates included, but for now I do not see those wanting to "report on the race", changing their position or compromising. I note there has been no uptake of my proposal/idea of having the withdrawn candidates photos appear in black and white to emphasis that they have suspended their campaigns. Anyway good luck, and sorry for my pessimism.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:36, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. As you'll see, I rolled back my comment just as you were thanking me. There's enough drama. best, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:22, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes, you can't help everyone. Hopefully, he finds a way to continue contributing. Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 15:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

There is a discussion on Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries on whether Gabbard should be included. Consensus is that her inclusion goes against all options of the Rfc, but please share your thoughts. Please remove her from the infobox. To sum up, there's no reason to include her as she's done no better than candidates who aren't there like Yang or Steyer.Smith0124 (talk) 21:51, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I presume you were referring to this section. I have commented there.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: I have moved your edit warring report from the "incidents" noticeboard to the edit warring noticeboard. Best, MrClog (talk) 21:57, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reporting that fellow to ANI/ANEW. I was looking into it myself, but the administrative side of Wikipedia confuses me and I wasn't sure where to start with it. Hopefully my watchlist will be a bit calmer now. — Kawnhr (talk) 00:15, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Me-123567-Me. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to List of federal political parties in Canada have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. There was discussion on the talk page about Wexit Canada not being registered so it should not be on the list. Please do not re-add it without discussion. Me-123567-Me (talk) 02:23, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for alerting me to this. I will comment there.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 03:02, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at List of federal political parties in Canada. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Wexit Canada is still NOT registered, it's only eligible to be registered. I removed the other non-registered party that is only eligible. Me-123567-Me (talk) 15:49, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Me-123567-Me, please refrain from your allegations of vandalism and engage on the talk page. If you fail to do so, I will be reverting you removal of proper content from that article.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)

I did leave a comment. I will remind you again to please wait for a consensus on the talk page or I will report you for violating WP:AN/3RR. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your behaviour here has not been disruptive whether you intend it to be or not. I have placed a warning on your talk page. Removal of properly cited content in these circumstances without engaging with the substance of the conversation on the talk page verges on WP:Vandalism. I have tried to be restrained in my response to you, but you need to Desist.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:16, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As the editor adding the new material, the burden is on you to show that it meets the criteria for the list. I strongly suggest you work with other editors, including Me-123567-Me, toward establishing a consensus (or a new consensus) on including the unregistered but eligible parties. Further, bear in mind that you've made three reverts to List of federal political parties in Canada within the last 24 hours. —C.Fred (talk) 21:36, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks C.Fred, but I have not made three reverts to the same content. I have reverted Me-123567-Me once here, and arguably a second time here, where I added notes explaining the distinction or lack thereof between registered and eligible parties. My last edit restored content which was not related to that question directly (ie adding details to a citation which was already present in the article, attempting to explain what "historical parties" mean and condensing notices into one box). There was no basis for those edits to be reverted, and they should not have been, particularly without discussion. Perhaps that was inadvertent on the other editor's part, as a result of rather aggressive pounding on the undo button. I will continue to raise these issues on the talk page as I have been doing all along. Thanks for checking in.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:19, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have to be three reverts of the same content. It's three reverts, total. —C.Fred (talk) 00:50, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

C.Fred, are you asking me to remove the content I restored in this edit? It simply combined two notices, added detail to a citation (which was already present in the article) and added a one sentence description to another section of the article. If there is an editor asking me to revert this I will do so. I have not heard any objection to those items besides a blanket revert to anything I have done to this article. Frankly, I am rather upset to have an editor come out the gate and accuse me of vandalism and proceed to undo any edit I complete to an article (frequently without discussion of its merits). Why would an edit which simply adds title, work, and date information to a citation which already existed in the article be reverted and labeled vandalism?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:26, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was remining of you of the number of reverts you have made to the article. —C.Fred (talk) 01:46, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

- MrX 🖋 12:54, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits, accusations against other editors, and general behavior at Joe Biden sexual assault allegation suggest you have an axe to grind. Wikipedia is not the place for you to push a particular point of view or advocate for content changes based on any agenda. You have already used sub-bar sources for BLP information, which is a violation of WP:BLP, and are now engaging with other editors in a combative way about it for their appropriately removing it. I suggest you tone it down or face a possible report at WP:AE. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:51, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment, @Wikieditor19920: I do take it personally when editors seem to be pushing a WP:POV in removing verifiable content which they disagree with. The reasons given for removing Bernie Sanders statements and watering down of AOC's statements are unsatisfactory. It is further frustrating, to then have other editors suggest that the AOC statements are insignificant: "she is just saying it is okay to talk about it". Those comments are responding to what was "allowed to remain" in the article not her actual statements, as I have outlined several times on the talk page. In my view, what was "allowed" to remain in the article blunts her comments so significantly, it borders on misrepresenting them through omission of her "gaslighting" and "lacking integrity" comments. I would kindly suggest you also take a moment to conciser your actions in re-nominating an article for deletion five days after its the last close, calling for a protection change to deal with content disputes, and posting warnings like the above (which could be taken by some, as an attempt to scare editors on one side of a content dispute away). If you want to make a report to WP:AE you do what you need to do, perhaps you may also wish to consider WP:BOOMERANG first. Have a swell day.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 16:49, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Consider the warning a favor. As for getting frustrated over other editor's arguments for removing material you believe is warranted, especially if done for what feel's like an inappropriate reason--I've been there. But you need to pick your battles and not make things personal. The AOC comments are not the focus of the article or super significant, so it is not an unreasonable position to hold that they should be trimmed down or condensed. I actually agree with you about the nom, which is why I withdrew it. I do not agree with you about the protection. The same level of protection was applied at Joe Biden in part due to disruptive edits at the sexual assault/misbehavior section. It is reasonable to infer that the same level of protection would be necessary at the spinoff page. It's a bad-faith accusation to suggest this was based on a "content dispute," nor do I see how this would garner any "advantage" with other editors who are autoconfirmed. These are the kind of unfounded accusations that are going to get you in trouble, so for your own good tone it down and use article talk pages to discuss content. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:05, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would there an option for closers comparable to a "direct" or "automatic" legal appeal, tendering the decision to Deletion Review? After all, according to Wikipedia's foundational principles and utmost caution w rgd its biographies of living people, in such a case as when a sizeable portion of the community believes an article is legitimately a point-of-view fork of a blp, how can the AfD close "No consensus (defaults to Keep)" be a valid one? (Forgive my choice of venue for this inquiry. Maybe it really ought to be posted to a Wikipedia talk page somewhere. ..)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's at DR, I contend, where WP might best decide whether some article is a POV fork or not, following protocols or what have you as applied consistently throughout the project. (Is Armenian Genocide denial a POV fork of Military history of the Republic of Turkey? If so, no go. If not, let it stand.)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hodgdon's secret garden, sure it might be possible to be sort things at DR. I think if the "Speedy Keep" is overturned and we go to a second deletion discussion, we are likely to end up with a "no consensus" close again as the majority of the commenters in the first and second discussions voted for a keep.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 16:30, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had decided that leaving undecided would encourage the continued editing. As there is no capital leaving that item blank removed the thought from the casual editor’s mind. I guess I am saying, “let’s leave it empty.” —¿philoserf? (talk) 23:39, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Philoserf: Fair enough. We could also put an inline note not to add one.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:46, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Darryl Kerrigan: Whichever you prefer, (empty|note).—¿philoserf? (talk) 23:51, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Philoserf: Done. I also created a talk section on the page.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You might wish to make a closing statement at Talk:2020 Nova Scotia attacks#Dead and injured dogs. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jax 0677:, I kind of just left it as there is discussion at the end, and I don't want to poke anyone or rule on the consensus there, as I was involved. I simply closed is as it seemed to have run its course, and I wanted to discourage comments in that section. If folks want to start a new one, discussing moving the mention of the dogs, naming the breeds, including the names of the dogs or other specific proposals I think they are free to do so. If you want to reverse that, or make a closing comment (or someone else does), feel free to do so. I think the absence of one, makes clear the discussion can continue in another section (hopefully focused on a specific proposal) and folks are free to make their own representations of what the rough consensus was in the closed discussion if necessary.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:45, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Joe Biden sexual assault allegation shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in being blocked from editing—especially, as the page in question is currently under restrictions from the Arbitration Committee, if you violate the one-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than one revert on a single page with active Arbitration Committee restrictions within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the one-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the one-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Please revert yourself and ensure that you have made no more than 1 reversion during the past 24 hours. I believe this edit is the one that should be reverted as the other has already been so. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:05, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DIYeditor: On what basis do you say that was a violation of WP:1RR? Are you saying if I removed all of [1] content as one edit, it would be one revert, but because I removed some content relating to one issue (and started a talk discussion) and content then removed a different bit of content (and started a talk discussion) that violates 1RR? I don't think it does. I particularly don't think it does when the editor who added that content, said we needed to go through it to determine whether what they had added was WP:DUE. Frankly, I don't love being accused of edit warring for making two individual edits and taking each of them to the talk page.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:22, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted my edit to be safe. I do not believe this is a WP:1RR violation though, and very much resent the accusation. Throwing around accusations like this are not helpful.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:27, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't blame them: I'm the one who pointed out that you violated 1RR. In fact, if you hadn't violated 1RR in your second deletion, I wouldn't have violated 1RR by reverting it.

I reverted myself. You reverted yourself. All is well. FollowTheSources (talk) 19:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since the material was added in the past 24 hours, deleting some portion of it counts as a reversion. When reversions are separated by the edits of another user, they are counted separately. So AzureCitizen added material today, you deleted 1 section of it (1 reversion), another editor made some edits, then you deleted another section (2 reversions). I agree the 1RR is extremely difficult to work with; I don't like it at all. I warned you because I warned FollowTheSources and they pointed out that it appeared you had made 2 reversions today as well. Feel free to ask for a second opinion on whether this constituted a 1RR violation. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And who would you recommend, I ask? Trying to apply WP:1RR in this way largely defeats the call to action from AzureCitizen to go through these materials and decide what is WP:DUE and WP:UNDUE. We now have material included for which there is no consensus to include, and we have at least one editor there trying to reverse the onus, to require consensus to remove content, as opposed to achieve consensus to include it. That whole article is a mess and whether intentional or not there is some pretty gamey stuff happening there, these sorts of allegations included. We have now had at least four move discussions there, two deletion discussions (plus a review), a forked article created, a deletion discussion about that forked article (canvassing at that discussion), and now a merger. This is the sort of nonsense which pushes good editors away.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Darryl,
Since our argument seems to be taking attention away from the RfC, I thought we should discuss it here instead. Like I said before, I apologize for offending you. I’m not sure how I did, but I can tell from your hostility that I did. I’m puzzled by your current statements, and I do mean that. You agree that the prior RfCs were inconclusive, but at the same time are now saying I’m “vetoing” the consensus created by them. You’ve expressed a frustration with the lack of a consensus, yet claim that there is one out there that I’m ignoring, which you won’t provide a link to. You’ve said you disapprove of RfCs, yet have participated in mine. You admit to being hostile, and claim it is “required” to get your way. You said you’d like to “bat people down hard” who disagree with you. You claimed that I was uncompromising in my desire to keep Gabbard per the status quo, when, in fact, I agreed to remove her. Honestly, the thing I’m feeling most right now is confused. I don’t understand why you’re angry at me; you invited me to open an RfC in our last discussion and I thought you’d be excited to get the criteria settled on. I’m also confused about what your position is on the current presence/absence of a consensus. Your views seem a bit hard to pin down. In all sincerity, I’d like to know what I can change so we can get along and achieve the consensus we’ve both been working towards. Thanks for your time.

 — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 23:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not offended or angry with you. I was just trying to bring you up to speed. I hope my comment here is helpful in that vein. I am frustrated with another editor. They know why.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I’d really prefer not to get involved in an argument between you and Smith0124. I just want my RfC to be able to proceed smoothly. You seem to be using the RfC as a forum to continue your argument with Smith. Can you please commit to refraining from further hostility in that section, whether directed at me or anyone else? It’s disruptive to the RfC. Thanks. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 23:13, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if your RfC is limited to the infobox on the main page then it does not overlap with the one that Smith has created concerning the sub-pages. I apologize. I am beyond testy with another editor. I was trying to be constructive with your RfC, but is apparent that you are feeling my lack of respect for the manner this other editor' has discussed this matter with me, misrepresented things, and attempted to unilaterally veto consensus and impose their ownership on sub-pages. My "hostility" is directed at them, not you. We have already been to ANI. Unfortunately, efforts to resolve the dispute with them has not been successful. They have decided to require the rest of us to beat a dead horse, so beat it we shall, at least until someone steps in and tells them to stop it. I don't blame you for not wanting to get in the middle of that. I don't think I have made accusations against you, as opposed to that other editor, but would be happy to remove them, if I have and you point me to them. Thank you for trying to lay this other issue concerning the main page to rest.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I’m satisfied with this response. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 01:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:05, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Per this AN/I thread.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:11, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, those articles are under sanctions which limit reverts to 1 per day. GoodDay (talk) 13:11, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @GoodDay: I appreciate the notice. Do sanctions apply to the sub-articles? I see Beyond My Ken seems to think they have not been applied to those articles. It would be good to know whether or not they apply.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 16:33, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe they do, but I reckon you're safe, as they're applied via administrators' discretion. BTW: Smith0124 has been indef blocked, as a sock of a indeffed editor. GoodDay (talk) 16:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes, I had seen that.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Soomro on a request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Genocide of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia on a request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:The Haunting of Hill House (TV series) on a request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:38, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Darryl. I am Wollers14. I have been in talks regarding the section your old friend Smith0124 put onto the 2020 Senate elections page as well as the Nishkanen ratings and I would like your opinions on both matters because we are currently discussing whether or not to remove them entirely due to issues with them. I would like other's opinions on the matters allow me to say that I am not pressuring you to take a side I am simply asking what side you are on. Also I saw that little fight you two had and judging by what I saw it looks like Smith was not the compromise type as he would not consider my arguments to what action I wanted regarding that section he only wanted to improve it to which I reluctantly agreed but with him gone he will no longer be able to improve it. This brings us to a new talk about weather to keep it or not which I am asking people's opinions about. Thank You. Wollers14 (talk) 04:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wollers14, I have not carefully reviewed Smith's edits on the Senate elections pages, though I did see he was making a lot of them. I obviously conflicted with Smith about one main issue concerning the presidential nominations. That said, I found myself agreeing or finding common ground on others on occasion. Even sock-puppets or disruptive editors can sometimes make productive edits, so I don't think the answer is to wholesale undo any edit he made. I think his edits need to be reviewed, and if they are uncontroversial they should likely be left to stand, if they are obviously disruptive they should be undone, and if they are somewhere in the middle they should be discussed. It does create a mess for us as he voted in many RfCs (some now closed) and made a lot of edits in the short time he was here.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:12, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Famke Janssen on a request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:30, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:National Cabinet (Australia) on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 06:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Queen Letizia of Spain on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:31, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Daily Mail on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 10:31, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the edit histories of Special:Contributions/Swordshieldstan and Special:Contributions/Yeungkahchun it appears that they are almost assuredly sockpuppets of each other, likely to get around the 1 revert rule for presidential elections articles. Both have edited primarily articles related to Hong Kong, Pokemon and US Elections, and both have been removing information about 3rd party candidates from the 2020 US Elections Page see here User_talk:Yeungkahchun#Mass_removal_of_Libertarian_and_Green_Party_information_from_2020_United_States_presidential_election.XavierGreen (talk) 21:17, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

XavierGreen: Yes, the thought had crossed my mind. In the meantime we of course, need to WP:AGF, but it may be appropriate to make a proper report if there is some evidence there. Frankly, I am a little unclear on the correct process for that. I don't believe I have ever done it before.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened up a sockpuppet investigation here with some pretty thorough analysis and some extremely strong evidence related to other edits both have made. You can read the investigation here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/yeungkahchun.XavierGreen (talk) 01:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		For diffusing the hostility when I got carried away. You've also earned it, I'd say, by consistently making thorough and reasoned arguments at Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries and Talk:2020 United States presidential election, even when you yourself admitted frustrated with the tedium of the RfCs. — Tartan357  (Talk) 09:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I am glad it we have reached a consensus that folks seem to be comfortable living with for the movement. I hope these 5% guidelines avoid some of the uncertainty and time spent on these issues each election.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He mentioned it during the press conference, but you're right, the ref does not have that info (yet). // sikander { talk } 🦖 23:54, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well if he said it we can include it. Thanks, wanted to make sure we weren't getting ahead of ourselves there.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 11:32, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Involuntary commitment on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:31, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Darryl Kerrigan, Me-123567-Me has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:34, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Committee for a Workers' International (1974) on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:31, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Template talk:Infobox album on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 04:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 10:31, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Tucker Carlson Tonight on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:31, 31 October 2020 (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) 02:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In this reply at WP:Articles_for_deletion/Jake_Angeli one question you asked was "Is everyone photographed here notable?"

That Time article is illustrated by 16 photos. The captions don't specifically identify most of the people in the photos, other than to say they were "Trump supporters" or "QAnon supporters".

The caption to the second image specifically names Alex Jones. If Jones were on the cusp of notability, this article would be one more factor adding to this notability. Mike Cernovich is mentioned, by name, in the body of the article. Yes, that mention adds to his notability.

The twelfth image's caption says "Andrew Germana and Jenna Colley feed their baby at the Maricopa County Elections office in Phoenix, on Nov. 5". Germana and Colley almost certainly aren't notable enough to merit enough notability for a standalone article. But it does establish some notability. If they were to show up and get significant coverage, on inauguration day, this Time article would establish that they were not BLP1E individuals. If a section of some other article covered mothers who brought their babies to potentially dangerous protests, the coverage here could be enough to merit that section mentioning them.

The sixteenth and final image specifically names Jake Angeli. As with Germana and Colley, the Time article establishes he is not a BLP1E. I think if you don't accept this you need to re-read BLP1E.

I am going to point out something that I would have thought obvious. You do realize that this Time article is far from the only RS coverage of Angeli that predates the insurrection?

I am replying to this question here, on your talk page, as I don't think my reply would add to the discussion at the AFD for any reader except you. Geo Swan (talk) 00:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I don't find any of your arguments the least bit persuasive. Sure, there are photos of people included in that article who are independently notable (ie. Alex Jones). That isn't what we are taking about though. There are numerous people in those photos, some identified by name and some not, who are not notable for our purposes. WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV require significant coverage, preferably over a extended period of time. The mention in the Time article is trivial. As is other pre-storming coverage like this. I simply don't think participating in a few rallies with passing mention focusing on the costume he was wearing confers notability on him. I don't seem to be the only one to have formed that view either.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Post-classical history on a "History and geography" request for comment, and at Talk:Brexit Party on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Conservative Party (UK) on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed a couple of things you posted because they are clear violations of WP:BLP. Please don't suggest that someone may be guilty of a criminal offense because they happen to share a name with someone else. That's really irresponsible. Mo Billings (talk) 21:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mo Billings: I have no idea if this person with the exact same name and who lives in the same state (Connecticut) is the same person. I think it is okay for us to discuss that on a talk page. If you think it is not the same person, that is fine, I just don't know or how we should deal with it at Aftermath of the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol, and how we would even figure out if it is the same person without discussing it. You have a proposal? Because this edit, this one and this one aren't going to help us figure out if it is the same person, with the same name, living in the same state.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Start by comparing their ages. Ping me if you need more clues, but only after you read WP:BLP again. Mo Billings (talk) 21:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I hadn't seen the age. Not sure if I missed that, or the article updated after my first post.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coming back to your other question, Wikipedia isn't the place to speculate about whether someone was involved in a criminal action. My proposal for figuring it out is to do research, discuss it somewhere else, or wait for it to become clear. Sorry, but I think that anything else is going to be a violation of WP:BLP. Mo Billings (talk) 22:52, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:United States on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:The Holocaust on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:30, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde, BWV 53 on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 04:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:31, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Moldavia on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 10:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Motörhead on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 06:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Buffalo, New York on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:31, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:30, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:John F. Kennedy on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:30, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Snake oil on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:31, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Pose (TV series) on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:31, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:B-segment on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 04:32, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Reporters Without Borders on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:30, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Redhill railway station on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:30, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Nixon Jew count on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 04:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:30, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Julian Assange on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 10:30, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Pedro I of Brazil on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:30, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Statue of Edward Colston on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 13:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 01:33, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Silicon Valley on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:President of Venezuela on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:30, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:2019 Sammarinese general election on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Abolitionism in the United States on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:30, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Tlalli on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:30, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Template talk:The Sopranos on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:31, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Afghanistan on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:31, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]