User talk:Jackattack1597

Archives

Your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fencer of Minerva

It was a good close, I just wanted to point out in the count it’s actually a 5-2. Don’t forget about the nominator as well. Generally if they are doing a procedural or proxy nomination they will mention so in there nomination it self. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 21:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, sorry that I forgot to count the nominator, glad I didn't close as a straight keep. I'm relieved that I got that one right, since I don't usually do closures, but I am trying to get more experienced with closures when I can find ones that aren't super heated.Jackattack1597 (talk) 00:15, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your response to my edit in Miss World 1951

Hello, by the way it's Cam Drawel here. May I know which part of the page I deleted? The anonymous contestant one? Sorry about that, I just realized that you had just deleted a section which you had inserted yourself, I'll be more careful next time. I already removed the warning on your talk page.Jackattack1597 (talk) 13:34, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Lawrence Brooks (American veteran) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lawrence Brooks (American veteran) 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/Lawrence Brooks (American veteran) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.

ThurstonMitchell (talk) 09:52, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for participating in my RFA

I especially appreciate your lack of concern. ;-) Please feel invited to call on me if you see something of which I should be aware, especially if I'm the culprit. BusterD (talk) 21:10, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject

.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AfC for Vaush

talk) 20:27, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

RfA 2021 review update

Thanks so much for participating in Phase 1 of the RfA 2021 review. 8 out of the 21 issues discussed were found to have consensus. Thanks to our closers of Phase 1, Primefac and Wugapodes.

The following had consensus support of participating editors:

Corrosive RfA atmosphere
The atmosphere at RfA is deeply unpleasant. This makes it so fewer candidates wish to run and also means that some members of our community don't comment/vote.
Level of scrutiny
Many editors believe it would be unpleasant to have so much attention focused on them. This includes being indirectly a part of watchlists and editors going through your edit history with the chance that some event, possibly a relatively trivial event, becomes the focus of editor discussion for up to a week.
Standards needed to pass keep rising
It used to be far easier to pass RfA however the standards necessary to pass have continued to rise such that only "perfect" candidates will pass now.
Too few candidates
There are too few candidates. This not only limits the number of new admin we get but also makes it harder to identify other RfA issues because we have such a small sample size.
"No need for the tools" is a poor reason as we can find work for new admins

The following issues had a rough consensus of support from editors:

Lifetime tenure (high stakes atmosphere)
Because RfA carries with it lifetime tenure, granting any given editor sysop feels incredibly important. This creates a risk adverse and high stakes atmosphere.
Admin permissions and unbundling
There is a large gap between the permissions an editor can obtain and the admin toolset. This brings increased scrutiny for RFA candidates, as editors evaluate their feasibility in lots of areas.
RfA should not be the only road to adminship
Right now, RfA is the only way we can get new admins, but it doesn't have to be.

Please consider joining the brainstorming which will last for the next 1-2 weeks. This will be followed by Phase 2, a 30 day discussion to consider solutions to the problems identified in Phase 1.

There are 2 future mailings planned. One when Phase 2 opens and one with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Best, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of governors of Texas by age for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of governors of Texas by age 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/List of governors of Texas by age until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

List of governors of California by age has also been included in the nomination with List of governors of Texas by age. OCNative (talk) 22:23, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RfA Reform 2021 Phase 2 has begun

Following a 2 week brainstorming period and a 1 week proposal period, the

Request for Adminship

process has begun. Following feedback on Phase 1, in order to ensure that the largest number of people possible can see all proposals, new proposals will only be accepted for the for the first 7 days of Phase 2. The 30 day discussion is scheduled to last until November 30. Please join the discussion or even submit your own proposal.

There is 1 future mailing planned with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

16:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		For your help, I appreciated it. Lightburst (talk) 14:31, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users

are allowed 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 2021 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

RFA 2021 Completed

The 2021 re-examination of RFA has been completed. 23 (plus 2 variants)

ideas were proposed. Over 200 editors participated in this final phase. Three changes gained consensus and two proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration. Thanks to all who helped to close the discussion, and in particular Primefac, Lee Vilenski, and Ymblanter for closing the most difficult conversations and for TonyBallioni

for closing the review of one of the closes.

The following proposals gained consensus and have all been implemented:

Revision of standard question 1 to Why are you interested in becoming an administrator? Special thanks to xaosflux for help with implementation.
A new process,
move review
. Thanks to all the editors who contributed (and are continuing to contribute) to the discussion of how to implement this proposal.
Removal of
autopatrol from the administrator's toolkit. Special thanks to Wugapodes and Seddon
for their help with implementation.

The following proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration:

An option for people to run for temporary adminship (proposal, discussion, & close)
An optional election process (proposal & discussion and close review & re-close)

Editors who wish to discuss these ideas or other ideas on how to try to address any of the six issues identified during phase 1 for which no proposal gained are encouraged to do so at

village pump

.

A final and huge thanks all those who participated in this effort to improve our RFA process over the last 4 months.

This is the final update with no further talk page messages planned.

01:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the

2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users

are allowed 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 2022 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Nomination of Krakoa for deletion.

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Krakoa 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/Krakoa (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished. Nekivik (talk) 08:35, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Jackattack1597. Thank you for your work on

page curation process

, had the following comments:

Thanks for creating the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 11:41, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tennessee Senate, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brent Taylor.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Totalitarian architecture (2nd nomination) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Totalitarian architecture (2nd nomination) 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/Totalitarian architecture (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

Paragon Deku (talk) 03:58, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wyandot Nation of Anderdon, with headquarters in Trenton, Michigan

Hello - Thank you for creating Wyandot Nation of Kansas!

I just saw on Wyandot people#Contemporary Wyandot groups that there is another unrecognized group in Trenton, Michigan and was wondering (hoping) that perhaps you would be interested in creating an article for that as well?

Kindest regards, Gjs238 (talk) 14:24, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I created an article for them, but I am honestly not sure if it meets notability standards.Jackattack1597 (talk) 15:53, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed 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 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]