User talk:Bomberswarm2

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article

Also, when you post on

]

Proposed deletion of Gino and Mark Stocco

The article Gino and Mark Stocco has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article fails

WP:NOTNEWS

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. AussieLegend (✉) 05:45, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gino and Mark Stocco is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gino and Mark Stocco until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. AussieLegend (✉) 14:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into

sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bomberswarm2, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations

, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Grayfell (talk) 07:09, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are suspected of

I removed this statement from the article, which I later found you had added: "As of 2017, it is also the last official inaugration (sic) to take place on a day other than January 20th." That is plainly incorrect because the inauguration of Gerald Ford occurred on August 9, 1974. (Others might also count Reagan's second inauguration and either or both of Obama's, but I wouldn't.) I didn't flag it as vandalism because it seems to have been a mere factual error, quite possibly because LBJ was the last President to be sworn in due to the death of his predecessor (Ford's predecessor Nixon resigned), as well as the last President sworn in by anyone other than a Chief Justice. --RBBrittain (talk) 07:56, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at

]

Cheeseburgers were first popularized in the United States during the 1920s and 30s.

I think this user is pretty alright. Bit odd, but totally cool. They are an equal peer and try to stay NPOV. I'm personally glad they are on Wikipedia. Hopefully, this post doesn't bother them. If it does, they can just remove it. XD Endercase (talk) 18:48, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2017

its good to meet someone here! have you heard of PINGAS?75.171.21.21 (talk) 00:39, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bomberswarm2. 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

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]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The

discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here

.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

— Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 12:58, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bomberswarm2! Questions about the above “Alert”? I wrote a quick & dirty FAQ—check it out here. If you have any questions about policies or editing or anything else just ask me on my talk page :-) – Lionel^(talk) 05:07, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

you have a long history of breaking wiki rules and to show how much your actively trying to make Wikipedia worse 1.the 1972 New York edit clearly trying to make nixon look good 2.the bellwether edit once again trying to make the republicans look good backing it up with an unrelated source 3.Massachusetts once again trying to make the republicans look good oh yippee the states former governor won one percent more than the guy that lost Indiana super 4.1948 polls showed Clinton leading by just 6 electoral votes hardly a landslide 5.home states thats still his home state 6.d.c 72 how is winning 22% notable 7.ingratiation come on 8.that time you just used a sock puppet to vandalize the birther page and then claimed discrimination classy

and those are just the ones i've found so do us all a favour just stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drowningseagull (talk • contribs) 09:43, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the 1992 Montana election map you produced, there is an error for one county: Hill County was actually won by Clinton with ~45% of the vote, whereas the map shows it being won by Bush instead. 47.19.33.202 (talk) 16:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bomberswarm2. 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

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]