User talk:Prose072

Rules

Discussion

Proposed text now transferred to User:Prose072/sandbox.

BWilkins

(talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Sandbox

What you should do now is:

convert User:Prose072/sandbox into a Wikipedia article
contact me or any established editor and ask us whether we think the article is fit to go live
if so, that editor will move the article to United States v. Ballin which is the proper title for this article and already has two incoming links.

— RHaworth (talk · contribs) 07:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Under construction

Thanks again. --72.213.198.19 (talk) 14:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)--72.213.198.19 (talk) 14:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved User:Prose072/sandbox to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/United States v. Ballin in the hope that others may notice and turn it into an article. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 04:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

United States v. Smith, 286 U.S. 6 (1932)

in reference to the statement

" As the construction to be given to the rules affects persons other than members of the Senate, the question presented is of necessity a judicial one." 'United States v. Smith, 286 U.S. 6 (1932)

Argument

Article draft material deleted from here. It can still be seen: here.

Relevance of Ballin to Cloture Rule

See this explanation

I challenge you: I have prepared this sandbox copy of cloture. See if you can add to it a note about US v. Ballin which is: a) entirely in your own words and b) not more than 500 bytes long. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 03:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 12:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I was doing that... Then I was going through mt settings and thought there was an auto enable, maybe I missed checking it... thanks for the heads up.. 13:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)13:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)Prose072 (talk) 13:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

United States v. Ballin

This user played a significant role in helping United States v. Ballin graduate from incubation.

Thanks for starting the United States v. Ballin article. I am happy to report that it has now graduated the incubator and is in mainspace for all the see. I will submit it to DYK shortly. Thanks for your hard work! --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of United States v. Ballin

Hello! Your submission of United States v. Ballin at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for United States v. Ballin

On April 9, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article United States v. Ballin, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 02:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:New York Times February 29th 1892 United States v Ballin REEDs QUORUM WAS VALID.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:New York Times February 29th 1892 United States v Ballin REEDs QUORUM WAS VALID.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 00:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 22:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedy deleted as being about a musical recording that does not indicate its own importance and where the artist's article does not exist, because... (This page is for discussion NOT Deletion on an issue on my personal Talk Page) --Prose072 (talk) 14:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC) (This page is for discussion NOT Deletion on an issue on my personal Talk page) User:Prose072[reply]

		The WikiProject Albums Barnstar
		message Prose072 (talk) 02:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:William Bowery (American Songwriter)

Hello, Prose072. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:William Bowery (American Songwriter), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Bot0612 (talk) 11:16, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2023

Superseded block

You have been blocked from editing for abuse of editing privileges in relation to information which has been removed from Wikipedia's public records.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then email the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-enwikimedia.org.

Administrators: Information which has been oversighted was considered when this block was placed. Therefore the Oversight team or the Arbitration Committee must be consulted before this block can be removed. Administrators undoing oversight blocks without permission from an oversighter risk having their administrator rights removed by the Arbitration Committee (per this announcement).

-- Izno (talk) 05:00, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you emailed your Arbitration Committee appeal to me. If you're trying to contact the Committee, use the email address given in the block notice: arbcom-en@wikimedia.org. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:02, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing I can do to help you: your block is reviewable only by the Oversight team (email oversight-en-wp@wikipedia.org) or the Arbitration Committee (email arbcom-en@wikimedia.org), so you'll have to contact one of those if you want to appeal. That said, a word of advice: Wikipedia is not a court of law, and if you file an appeal that looks like the one you emailed me, it will have no chance at all of succeeding. (Take my word for it.) If, by contrast, your appeal is concise and says something along the lines of "I'm sorry for reposting material after it was oversighted, and I promise I won't do it again", there's a decent probability that you'd be unblocked. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:01, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 ~~~~}}. Primefac (talk) 08:10, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your block has been downgraded from an OS block to a standard DE block, and should be appealed through the normal routes. For reviewing administrators, Special:Diff/1134871035 is the final warning given to Prose072 regarding the repeated re-addition of (at the time) suppressed content. Primefac (talk) 08:13, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]