User talk:Novemberjazz/Archives/2021/November

Paul Deasy

I am currently trying to limit my direct article editing, so I am not directly posting such things. However looking at the last deletion discussion on Paul Deasy, it appears that may have been over a totally different person with the same name. I think the rest of your reasoning is sound, but I do not think they are the same person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:55, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• It is probably relevant that Flagstaff has a council/manager system not a council/mayor system. So mayor is an honorary title for what may essentially be the city council president. Such mayors are less likely to be notable than ones in a council/mayor system. There are also cities that use a commission system, where the mayor is part of a unitary leadership that is the executive. That is what Birmingham, Alabama had when Bull Connor was "police commissioner" meaning that he was the member of the commission over police. There were more cities with that type of government in the US in the 1960s than there are today. It may also be worth determining if Flagstaff city level elections are partisan. If they are non-partisan, than the unsourced statements about the political leadnings of Deasy and the council would need to be revised to drop mention of party affiliation. In Michigan city councils are elected in a non-partisan manner. However in Utah council members and mayors are elected with party affiliations by you they advance in a free for-all primary. In New York the primaries are partisan and so you have show downs of the parties in general elections. I am not versed enough to say how any other state does it. In Michigan Townships and counties do elections in the general partisan way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:03, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Johnpacklambert, it is very good to see you back. As for your observation, it appears you may be right. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Deasy from 2018, comments indicate that the Paul Deasy in question was an obscure Irish footballer. KidAd • SPEAK 21:38, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Dale Holness

Hello, KidAd,

Drafts and some User pages are eligible for CSD G13 status when it has been at least six months since the last human edit (bot edits don't count). So, today, that would mean that the last human edit to the draft would have to be May 3, 2021 or earlier. Please don't tag drafts too early because editing the page starts the six month clock back to the beginning and drafts mistagged today won't be eligible for G13 deletion again until May 3, 2022. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:27, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Liz, certainly. Understood. Thank you. KidAd • SPEAK 21:34, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Marni von Wilpert

Hello KidAd- this is Councilmember Marni von Wilpert. I was just making a couple edits to my page and it seems that you have deleted those changes as well as deleted sections that were there prior to my edits today. Can you explain why you have done this? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.29.37.32 (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

November 2021

Your recent editing history at Josh Shapiro shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page 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 three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Toddst1 (talk) 22:34, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Winsome Sears revisions

Hello KidAd,

In follow-up to your reverting my Winsome Sears edits, I made further revisions, as included at the bottom of the Winsome Sears talk page. Please review and add your further comments.

Thanks,

DavidMWalter (talk) 17:41, 19 November 2021 (UTC)David Walter

DavidMWalter, I can see that you've been blocked from editing the Winsome Sears page for a period of one week. I also understand, based on your contributions, that you have never edited pages other than the Winsome Sears page or talk page. It is my advice to you that you take that as a warning and start editing other pages. If you would like to form a consensus for your changes after your block, do it on the article's talk page, not mine. KidAd • SPEAK 18:18, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 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 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 2021 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) 00:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Adam Herschman for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Adam Herschman, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Herschman until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 27 November 2021 (UTC)