Utahredrock

ɵWelcome!

Hello, Utahredrock, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Alai 06:51, 1 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

Jim -- I figured out how to do this! Anyway -- you're right, the God Squad is a colloquial name for the 7- member committee that reviews possible ESA exemptions. I saw the name in 'Environmental Law and Policy' by Salzman and Thompson -- an excellent book by the way. I have also seen the God Squad refered to in law journals, so this colloquialism seems to be at least somewhat widespread. (do a google search of 'God Squad' and 'endangered species act' if you're not convinced) I'm certainly open to debate as to how prominent of a place the name should have in the article -- it might be a good idea to begin a whole new article and look at cases where the Committee has ruled for exemptions -- this will get into spotted owl territory and get quite controversial.

Anway -- what do you say that we continue this on the discussion page of the article? -- that way we may get more folks involved. Just a thought, I'm a newcomer here.

Matt

Utahmountainman was my original name on Wikipedia, though I also made earlier contributions under no name. I am not a native of Utah, haven't lived there since 2002, and am not LDS. It's my favorite state.--Utahredrock 04:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I returned to Utah in 2009! Amazing state.--Utahredrock (talk) 22:46, 7 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, and (once again!) welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed your request for a move to Confederacy of Fools and did so, as this clearly seemed purely like as technical issue, and nothing controversial. Note that you can perform such moves yourself, just click on the "move" tab that should appear when you're logged in, and at the article in question. I've also added a 'cleanup' tag to the article; I hope you don't take this amiss, as it seems to me to be a very nice article -- I've been here for months and haven't written that much new text at a gulp. :) Rather, I just think it suffers a possible 'tone' worry, as it indeed seems somewhat to take the attitude of a review of the book. That's probably straying into original research and point of view warning bell territory. Ideally such an article would confine itself to the purely factual and indisputable (and undisputed), and those opinions on the book that can be attributed to "notable" critics and commentators. I'm sure this can be done without any major overhaul of content, though. Perhaps I can help out if there are any policy or technical issues you'd like input on. Alai 07:01, 1 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

• Note This is in reference to one of my first articles in relation to the Enron scandal and Kurt Eichenwald's book Conspiracy of Fools.--Utahredrock 04:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

In reply to [1]. The FEMA disaster declaration information for Alabama (for example) is here. In addition to a "major disaster" declaration, there is now an "emergency" declaration [2], which gives FEMA broader authority and releases more federal funding. Similar declarations were made for all four states most affected (FL, AB, MS, LA).

As for your question about the "size at landfall" of Katrina, a few sources showed a radius of 200 miles from the eye for the hurricane-force winds, meaning an area of some 120,000 miles was potentially enclosed by the hurricane. Fortunately landfall quickly weakens a tropical cyclone. --Dhartung | Talk 08:02, 3 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Please do not add commercial links (or links to your own private websites) to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia as we drive for print or DVD publication; see the welcome page to learn more. Thanks. Vsmith 14:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Note This user was referring to links I added to my very non-commercial online magazine on the Colorado Plateau. Utahredrock the magazine can be viewed at http://www.utahredrock.com it has not been maintained as I would like but links to important information on the Colorado Plateau region including both news stories and other more permanent web resources. While it is non-commercial at this stage of it's [barely] existence, it could be fairly classified as my private web site and as such I don't dispute the suggestion.--Utahredrock 17:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
• Utahredrock.com still exists, but the online magazine of the Colorado Plateau is long gone.--Utahredrock (talk) 19:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

The following arose from the discussion regarding the request to delete the Gabrielle Giffords page I created, and defended. --Utahredrock 01:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Please don't do this. The article was going to be kept anyway. She was or is a state senator and meets WP:BIO. Removing the nom was unnecessary and uncool. JChap (talk • contribs) 23:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Please do not remove warnings from your talk page or replace them with offensive content. Removing or maliciously altering warnings from your talk page will not remove them from the page history. If you continue to remove or vandalize warnings from your talk page, you will lose your privilege of editing your talk page. Thanks. --Wine Guy Talk 06:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

As an info point, WP policies of course would affirm any user's right to remove contributions from their own talkpage after they've been read.  ${\displaystyle \sim }$  Justmeherenow (  ) 11:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Just saw the vandal label. Definitely don't want that.

Are you an administrator? If the Giffords article will be kept, when will the nomination for deletion be removed?--Utahredrock 15:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

• I'm not an admin, but I sometimes play one on TV. I read your argument at the AfD. It is a hotly debated issue around here and I encourage you to go to Wikipedia talk:Candidates and elections and make your views known. Also, if you wish to retract a statement you made, you normally should strike it out by bracketting it with <s> and </s> rather than just deleting it. Best, JChap (talk • contribs) 23:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Reply I took this advice, however, my comments were deemed unnecessary for that page so I moved them to this page. --Utahredrock 18:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

The vandalism page states:

Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia. The most common type of vandalism is the replacement of existing text with obscenities, page blanking, or the insertion of bad jokes or other nonsense. Fortunately, this kind of vandalism is usually easy to spot.

Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia. For example, adding an opinion once is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated. Utahredrock 02:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Look mate, I really don't have anything against you or your candidate. But you're going about things the wrong way. Your second modification to the Articles for deletion nomination, while it didn't eliminate the nom, was still immature and reflected poorly on you and your position. Also, you restored the links that I had deleted without providing an edit summary or discussing why they should be included on the talk page, as I had invited you to do. Links to blogs generally fall pretty far outside WP:EL, but if you want to make a case for their inclusion on the talk page, I encourage you to do so. You should also read the page on the three revert rule, which your last change violated. I hope you enjoy your time editing at WP, but you really need to calm down, use edit summaries, and don't climb the Washington Monument dressed as the Green Hornet. JChap (talk • contribs) 15:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sure I am a novice, but immature and uncool? OK, maybe that too.

I like the Green Hornet on the Washington Monument image.

My intention is to provide additional sources of information on Giffords. Adding the entry on Giffords was/is merely an attempt to provide a source of information on this candidate. If I had time and knowledge of other candidates I'd be writing mini-bios on people from all sides of the political spectrum including links to sites that discuss and or endorse those candidates as that is important additional info.

Cheers.--Utahredrock 15:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Note that the descriptions of your actions does not refer to the links, but rather to your vandalism of the AfD page. JChap (talk • contribs) 12:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

• The big lie (RE the charge of vandalism) When something is said often and loudly enough that people start to think it must be true. For God's sake, it was a mistake . . . a mistake . . . . just a flippin mistake. --Utahredrock 16:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

The vandalism which I reverted (see here) regarded you editing signed comments by other users, which is covered in WP:VANDAL, an official policy on the English Wikipedia (which BTW I strongly suggest you read). Another bit of suggested reading would be Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, in particular How to discuss an AfD/Wikietiquette; following these guidelines will help in getting your point across to other users. Alternativly, not following these guidelines a.) is rude b.) will annoy other editors c.) may cause the admin who closes the discussion to discount or ignore your comments.

Regarding your question as to how long the discussion will continue, AfD discussions typically go on for about five days. Unless an admin decides that there is an obvious consensus, or a clear policy issue, the discussion will likely be closed on Thursday.

I hope you will have a look at the policies and guidelines which I have suggested (as well as others) so that you'll be able to contribute more constructivly to the encyclopedia. --Wine Guy Talk 23:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Reply Thanks for the feedback. I want it to be clear that when I added the brackets I did so in a way that was meant to not edit what anyone had contributed, but to clarify that Giffords is simply not a current senator--and I signed them so it would be clear that I'd added a comment to someone elses comment. This was done with no intent of vandalism though it is clear that it was done improperly. Regards, --Utahredrock 02:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I have responded on my talk page. --Wine Guy Talk 10:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Civil behavior in life and on Wikipedia are critical. Engaging in name calling is uncivil.

One final quote drawn from the vandal policy--again: Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. --Utahredrock 01:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

It is critical we have more articles on politicians running for office, be it a municipal race, a national legislature, or an executive position. One of the great strengths of Wikipedia is the fact that it contains current and up to date information as well as obscure information that is hard to find in other places. But the key is: information. I’ve been updating myself on some Wiki-controversies. In the world of Wikia I am a devout inclusionist!

In the case of candidates it is important to note that elections are the lifeblood of the political process of a republic or democracy. One political challenger pointed out the obvious and painful truth of how the decks are stacked against challengers in democracies. Wiki doesn’t need to be an additional barrier for entry to aspiring politicians when it can be a source of information on such people.

In a democracy citizens need as many sources of information as possible on their candidates. It's a crime how much politicians have to spend to get their messages out. Candidates from all parties and levels of government are important to our political process. Suppressing information about them makes no sense. Wikipedia exists not to promote a candidate or cause but to serve as a source of information.

One of the worst Supreme Court decisions of the past fifty years was 1976’s Buckley case which limits the amount people can give to candidates. The net effect is that wealthy people can self-fund their elections leaving the average challenger begging for contributions maxed out at $4,200 per person per candidate in U.S. federal elections (primary plus general).

People need to write more articles on candidates to provide a good source of free information.

PS—Don’t knock Homestead City! I spent a few weeks there as a volunteer in the Hurricane Andrew cleanup. Those people are plenty important! (See: Wikipedia talk:Candidates and elections for the Homestead City reference.)

--Utahredrock 04:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

My Giffords entry survived the request for deletion made by the high school student from Australia.

Also, I survived the mini-mini-controversy (see above) as well.

I learned to NEVER alter in any way (even correcting spelling!) someone else's comments.

I'd never really engaged on discussion pages before this and got a bit of a baptism.

That addition of the word former was especially pernicious! (Trying in my very dry way to be humorous.) Learned something. --Utahredrock 05:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Apparently, somewhere along the way you learned how to create and edit what is IMO a pretty good article! This woman is very notable. She was already arguably notable IMO as a former state representative and then became unquestionably notable when she became a major-party nominee for Congress. (If you care to, you can check out my comments at the candidates and elections discussion, which probably don't exactly mirror yours but would come closer to being "inclusionist" than "deletionist" IMO, which I feel is pretty consistent with my overall view of Wikipedia, which, after all, is not paper. (Note: No trees were destroyed in the creation of this comment :) Rlquall 14:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

PS

As of last night 90 of the 131 articles that were nominated for deletion last Saturday, July 15, were closed. Of those ninety, 77% were deleted, only 23% survived. Of the 41 that were still open last night I am guessing a much high percentage will survive since they were harder to resolve. Won't be going back to check that theory out though! This Wiki-editing can become an obsession. --Utahredrock 16:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Another note: It appears, based on today's new articles, that over 2,000 articles per day are created. --Utahredrock 22:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

• • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Newpages

Regarding your most recent edit, on her own website it states that she's a member of "Congregation Chaverim", a Jewish synagogue. I've also found this congress.org website, this Washington Post website, and this Jewish periodical website all referring to her religion. Should I cite these sources in the article? I just thought it would be a bit messy for a template like that. johnpseudo 22:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Oops, nevermind. The new "Congressman" infobox doesn't have a religion box. johnpseudo 22:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

As per the discussion on some of the other template pages, it is a piece of information kept by the Records office of the congress. Stating a person's beliefs does not make anyone or any article a part of the Nazi legacy. Also, I feel that to remove it would only cater to WP:POINT. Stealthound 23:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

My thoughts

Not that my thoughts matter one way of the other here, however, I strongly think people's religion is a private matter whether or not they are in public life. If they choose to discuss it, that's their business, but it is nobody else's business unless someone is a religious figure or chooses to make it other people's business (beyond mere disclosure). This is especially true of those in public life. The founders of this nation wisely chose to separate church and state creating what many now would term as a secular government. The intermingling of religion and politics has a long, sad, sordid history.--Utahredrock 06:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I wrote a new article: Pinaleno Mountains. An amazing spot in AZ--especially for escaping the summer heat.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 06:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

image uploads

Hi there, thank you for uploading images to wikipedia. For future reference. Please add where you got the image from (usually a weblink is the easiest). Also, when possible, please upload new NASA images directly to Wikimedia Commons, so that all projects can use them (as a matter of fact a couple of your images were already present there and tag them as NASA images instead of the more generic "US Government". I have now moved them all to commons and added sources as well. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for doing that and thanks for the input.--Utahredrock (talk) 20:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I am adding this preface to issues covered on my talk page related to Obama family members. The rest of this introduction is copied from the second Roy/Abongo deletition debate I took part in (there were one or more previous debates on Roy/Abongo).

The main argument to delete is the alleged non-notability of Abongo/Roy/Malik? Obama. The guy’s life is forever changed because of his remarkably talented brother who has a good chance at becoming the president of the United States. We edit Wikipedia, I hope, less as voters and more as arbiters of facts.

What got me interested in the family of Barack Obama was the viral email that was going around claiming he is not a Christian and he is a _________ extremist. While I could see through the lie immediately, I had friends who just as immediately bought in to it. When I tried to find information on the supposed accomplices to Barack’s supposed religious views, it was hard to find a thing on the Internet.

As editors of Wikipedia we have responsibility and power. We have a responsibility to do our best to get the facts out. We have power because in this age of Google and Wikipedia circa 2008, tens of millions of people look to us, as imperfect as we are, as a source for information. In the case of Obama the numbers could be higher. Do all of those people read Wikipedia? Not necessarily, but the power of this online encyclopedia to disperse information is enormous.

If this article is deleted again, for at least the third time, life will go on.

What will be lost is a place that could serve as a small beacon of truth in a world filled with those who will twist the truth.

Not notable? Who are we kidding?

Barack wrote extensively about his brother in his bestselling book. That fact alone, given Barack’s international prominence makes Abongo/Roy notable. It’s a burden that Roy didn’t ask for and I wish him the best.

I ask my fellow Wikipedians to offer a simple place where people can easily get well sourced facts on this man and not be left wondering if the latest viral email they received is true or not.

Another reason why this man is incredibly notable

While I personally could care less what somebody’s religion is or isn’t, it’s an unfortunate fact that many people do care and a person’s religion is often included in encyclopedic entries (something I’ve argued against before).

Those on this page may have not noticed, but there is a struggle in this world between Muslim extremists and others. Few people who do pay attention would deny this.

It is a historic and notable fact that the brother of a major candidate for the president of the U.S. is Muslim. To my knowledge it is a historic first, and firsts are usually notable to writers of encyclopedias.--Utahredrock (talk) 12:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

NOTE: I want to emphasize that there is zero evidence (and I've spent many hours researching this) to suggest Abongo/Roy is an extremist.

 

A tag has been placed on Lolo Soetoro, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Loonymonkey (talk) 17:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

• Note: So far, Lolo has survived--as all important articles should.--Utahredrock (talk) 19:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
• Note: Somehow still there despite strong deletionist trends on Obama-family articles.--Utahredrock (talk) 20:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Of course I agree that everyone deserves to get the facts, but the facts are well handled in Barack Obama and Ann Dunham in my opinion, and I don't see anything in Lolo's separate article that is new or not already covered, and a fair amount missing or incorrect. I think people looking for information on Obama's religion will be looking at his own article, and having a separate article that seems dedicated to mentioning Lolo's Muslim background doesn't seem to be doing what you say you wanted to do. I don't at all suggest that information about Lolo be left out of the encyclopedia, but I think a separate article that has nothing additional is problematic. As for the missing and incorrect information . . . Tvoz

there's nothing about their daughter, for example,

I wasn't sure whether or not to add information on her since she's living person--Utahredrock (talk) 03:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, you can say that Ann Dunham and Lolo had a daughter, her name, date of birth, and a wikilink to her article all are fine.Tvoz/talk 03:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

unclear info about when Dunham and Soetoro met,

It states "He met Obama's mother, Ann Dunham, when they were both students at the University of Hawaii.[1]" It does not have the year, that would be good to add.--Utahredrock (talk) 03:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

No, that's the point - we don't have any more info than that they met while in college. We certainly don't know that they met as early as 1963. Tvoz/talk 03:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

when he was an Indonesian oil engineer,

Are you saying it doesn't have the years? It does state that is what he did.--Utahredrock (talk) 03:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

you say they met at college, then suddenly he's an oil engineer in Indonesia. No mention of when they moved there.Tvoz/talk 03:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

unsourced comment about Soetoro's influence on Obama,

Which comment? The whole thing is well sourced.--Utahredrock (talk) 03:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

You said that he was a big influence - where does that come from? Do you have a source for it? Tvoz/talk 03:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

error about Obama's Hawaii school, etc.

Thanks for fixing that--Utahredrock (talk) 03:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

No problem Tvoz/talk 03:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Was there a rush to add this article that prevented more research?

I certainly agree more research is needed. Unfortunately there didn't seem to be much left out there at least on the Internet.--Utahredrock (talk) 03:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, that's the point - not much is known, and what is known is amply covered in Barack Obama, Ann Dunham, etc. I'm not trying to get on your case, and I appreciate that sometimes we set up stubs for other people to fill out, but it seems to me that that this one didn't even use the information right here on Wikipedia, so I have to wonder what the rush was. Tvoz/talk 00:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

There was no "rush" there was and perhaps still is just a huge gap of information on this man who played a key role in Obama's life. I encourage you to fill in those blanks if you're more knowledgable and have better and more sources. I notice somebody removed a critical quote that she light on the fact that neither Soetoro, nor Obama's mother were muslim extremists. It is unfortunate how little detail is available on this man who has become central to the absurd argument that Obama is muslim and worse.--Utahredrock (talk) 03:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Why do you assume he played a "key role"? As far as I can tell, Obama only lived with him for four years from ages 6-10. I removed the quote because it is not the way we write articles - it was hanging there without any context. And it was about how Ann felt, not information about Lolo. Right, the rumor is wrong. But this article stub, unfortunately, really does nothing to refute it. I don't know that any more information is going to become available - and the piece as it is fails to meet notability standards in my opinion. I don't care to do much work on it because I don't think it should be there at all. But perhaps you want to. I'll take your word for it that your intentions are good, but I don't find this article worth saving. Tvoz/talk 03:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

• Note: This discussion continued on the Lolo talk page and on Tvoz's talk page as well.--Utahredrock (talk) 19:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

[outdent] Utah, I still don't think that Lolo has independent notability, and I think he can amply be covered in Ann Dunham - in fact I think that all of what we have in Lolo Soetoro is found in Ann's article or can be easily added without causing an undue weight problem in Ann's piece. Since notability can't be inherited - that is, just because someone has a connection to a notable person doesn't automatically make him notable too - and because we have yet to find anything at all that is about Lolo independent of Ann and Barack, I see no reason for Lolo's separate article. My concern about coatracking, as I have said, is that it appears to me that contrary to your stated intention in creating this article - to debunk the lies about Obama's religion - this article only serves to fuel those rumors with its sourcing (read some of the source articles) and the text having phrases like "Obama is a Muslim", even though it is preceded by "incorrect rumor" (maybe to increase Google hits on the phrase?). You saw the completely unacceptable, lying source that I removed whose title was something like "Barack Obama was a Muslim until age 31" - that is the kind of specious editing we have seen and can expect in this article, which is why I am watching it and removing that kind of garbage. But it would be better if we didn't have this article at all, as it adds nothing to our knowledge and is an attractive target for anti-Obama attacks. I am not here as pro-Obama or anti-Obama - I am here to defend the neutrality and integrity of Wikipedia and not allow it to be taken over by the right-wing or left-wing blog readers who frequently get their marching orders to "Add blah blah to Wikipedia", as if that will somehow validate their lies. To the best of my ability, not on my watch - and there are many other editors here who similarly watch and stop this garbage, but one of the ways we do it is to not encourage unneeded outposts for it. I think that Lolo Soetoro is one of them - even if you didn't intend it as such, and when an AfD is posted I will support it, if nothing has changed. Meanwhile, I'll be watching it and trying to keep it in check. Obama's campaign has taken a different approach to the problem - they've created a website that posts the smears and then debunks them - that's fine, and good luck to them, but it's not what we do on Wikipedia, so your idea of having Lolo's article serve that purpose is, I think, mistaken, even if well-intentioned. Tvoz/talk 21:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't follow all of that convoluted reasoning. Still, thanks for your outstanding contributions to the Lolo Soetoro article. Excellent work.--Utahredrock (talk) 21:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Nothing convoluted about it. Lolo has no independent notability and we have no information about him that does not involve Ann and/or Barack and is not easily covered in their articles. Tvoz/talk 22:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

• We disagree. Oh well, there are worse things! Cheers,--Utahredrock (talk) 22:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please note: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Can a proposal be made by an opponent to gauge the sense of the community?. — Justmeherenow (   ) 18:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

This may be what you are looking for, sixth one down. Regards. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Deletionists and canvassing

Please make sure you're not violating WP:CANVASS. I assume you'll be contacting people on both sides (say, others on the Barack Obama talk page), assuming there is a "both sides" to this (I don't know anything about it). Read WP:CANVASS carefully, please. Later I'll take a look at the AfD. Thanks for telling me about it. Noroton (talk) 18:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I added this to Noroton's talk page, but will expand on it here too. I didn't know of this CANVASS policy, which makes sense. I do feel the parties who are pro-deletion regarding Abongo Obama need a counterweight beyond my own dilligent arguments in favor of keeping the article. The primary argument for deletion seems to be that being the brother (half-brother) of a politician does not make one noteable. I agree with that, but in Abongo's case the story goes deeper.

Due to widespread mis-information on Barack Obama's religious affiliation, key players in that aspect of Obama's life are indeed highly noteable. This whole noteability thing has always seemed like some what of a red herring (narrative) to me. Under the best of circumstances it is a very subjective call whether someone is noteable enough or note for wikipedia inclusion.--Utahredrock (talk) 18:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

See http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html for another definition of red herring.--Utahredrock (talk) 18:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

A post that made me question if user was assuming good faith

Noroton's caution about canvassing is completely correct, Utharedrock. As for your not being aware of the policy, I would have thought you read my post on Abongo's talk page which specifically pointed out how you were inappropriately canvassing on that talk page for the same thing, which was before you canvassed Noroton. Nor have you posted neutral comments on other users' pages as far as I have seen which might satisfy the requirement that these be "friendly reminders". As for the AfD itself - you are entitled to express your opinion, of course, which you have done repeatedly. But I believe you are way out of line with how you re-formatted the AfD - you ought to familiarize yourself with basic policies before jumping in with both feet: AfD's do not have sections the way you added them - this kind of commentary would go on the Talk page or elsewhere - the project page is for other people to weigh in on whether they think an article should be kept, deleted, merged, etc. Replies can be posted, but what you did is way out of process. Jameson was right in his attempt to get it back on track - I think in fact all of the stuff you added from "Who is Malik" on down belongs at best on the Talk page and not on the project page at all. The only reason I didn;t change it myself was because I have commented there. Tvoz/talk 19:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I replied to this on Tvoz's talk page.--Utahredrock (talk) 19:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Where I replied as well. I'd also suggest another look at WP:NOTABILITY because you seem not to understand that Barack's inclusion of his half-brother in his memoir doesn't automatically mean the guy is notable by Wikipedia standards. There is no independent notability demonstrated, as has been said over and over again, and yet you just posted another comment that said that if Barack thinks he's notable, he's notable. It's just not the way it works here. Tvoz/talk 19:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

[out] Are you going to claim again that you didn't know about the policy against canvassing when you made these edits a few hours ago? Tvoz/talk 07:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Didn't have clue. You're far more the wiki-veteran than I am ever likely to be. I am still a little confused actually (nothing new). It seems like a common practice to ask for input. When I read the policy it looks like you can ask, but should be neutral in the ask. Will read again.--Utahredrock (talk) 19:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yet you didn't remove your inappropriate canvass on John McCain. Tvoz/talk 07:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

After reviewing the canvassing policy you've graciously directed me to, I don't find my comment at McCain inappropriate. Anyone, including you, can remove it of course.--Utahredrock (talk) 07:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Oh please. Do you seriously think your post on McCain was "neutrally-worded" as called for in the canvassing guideline? Did you follow the guideline and neutrally - i.e., not saying what your preferred outcome is - solicit comments from all sides of the issue after you canvassed Noroton and he correctly cautioned you about it? Also, did you miss this in the first paragraph: "messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and are generally considered disruptive" after you were directed to the guideline? Utahredrock, it's one thing to not be aware of a policy - that's fair enough - and it's another to come up with creative interpretations that go directly against what the words of the policy/guideline say - after it's been pointed out to you. You might think about getting some mentoring here about basic stuff - I'm done. Tvoz/talk 07:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I replied to this on Tvoz's page, but in case she deletes will add a comment here. I dispute her interpretation of canvassing, but wrote more about that on her page, and the McCain page. I hope she's done. I think she's taking it all too personally. I speak with some authority since, yesterday especially, I was starting to take this delete/keep debate too seriously and probably too personally too. From looking at Tvoz's talk page it appears she's been an outstanding contributor to Wikipedia and I commend her for that. We just happen to be on different sides of a debate now, big deal . . . I mean really. She's become a deletionist (at least on Obama family articles) and I have maintained my inclusionist leanings. I do wish Tvoz the best and I do hope she is done with this debate--I am close to being done, but feel obligated to reply to comments from others.--Utahredrock (talk) 07:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

PS I've also edited my comment at McCain talk based on Tvoz's input some of which was correct and I agree with.--Utahredrock (talk) 08:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Whether or not the deletionists, including Tvoz, win another round RE Abongo/Roy Obama is not all important. The issue will rise again because of his clear and obvious notability. At some point, the deletionists will almost certainly lose their battle.--Utahredrock (talk) 22:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

The article on Abongo Obama was deleted . . . again.

Here is the discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Abongo_Obama

I would love to know if it's been deleted more than twice.

I am not of the consipracy minded sort, but this deletion feels suspicious to me. I believe it was good people who were misguided. Oh well!--Utahredrock (talk) 04:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Here is a page with a link to the previous deletion discussion that I know of:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_February_24 --Utahredrock (talk) 04:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

is sure to be nominated for deletion; so I've actually done so myself here even though I believe it now passes muster due to Maliks multiple press mentions (which had not yet been catalogued when contributors had so very recently weighed in on its "Obongo" iteration. Please be patient with this proposal while those interested weight in again. (I'm notifying those who commented.) — Justmeherenow (   ) 06:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

• Good luck. The deletionists have worn me out for now. Cheers,--Utahredrock (talk) 16:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

  Stop with the personal attacks. I'm no "deletionist." Neither is Tvoz. Check my AfD contribs before you start calling people names. S. Dean Jameson 16:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Stop what? Did you not support the deletion? How is it a "personal attack" to call those who supported deletion, deletionists? I recognize that suppressionist sounds more offensive, but how can you argue against deletionist? Until you change your position, the term seems to fit quite well and it is not meant as a personal attack. Please calm down and stay on topic. With regards, --Utahredrock (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've dobbed you in, or at leasty made a de facto request to rent out some of your user space. Trying to find an actual solution for this, and examing the reasons for oppostiion to a merge into Obama family, I believe that they have an argument, but that there is a straight-forward solution. By writing a good, well sourced article at User:Utahredrock/Obama family and taking it to deletion review you'd be re-testing consensus in a socially acceptable way. I'd be happy to assisst with any questions about how the process works, such as how to write your pitch at deletion review, etc.

On another note, with respect to the short exchange above. I'm officially the Supreme Dark Angel of Deletion. But there was a time I chucked a serious cranky at being called "deletionist." There are multiple analogs in popular culture, where a group may self-identify using words that are unacceptable from someone outside the group.

In general, I try to remember that the mission here is to make the best content imaginable. By deleting everything into a micro-dot, but still...

brenneman 00:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

• Brenneman, I appreciate your comments, and even more I appreciate what appears to be a sense of humor (sometimes lacking out here, even from me). While some sort of Obama Family article makes sense, I don't have the time or desire to work on it right now. Though I sure wasted a lot of time this past weekend defending Abongo . . . but it's hot here in the Sonoran Desert and there is only so much to do in the middle of the summer heat! Cheers,--Utahredrock (talk) 00:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
  • Too easy, mate. If you're ever looking for something to do that might have a different enjoyment-to-frustration ratio, drop a note on my talk page. - brenneman 01:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Good (not brilliant) article

This is relevant to the inclusionist/deletionist debates of the wiki-world . . . .

http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2008/06/on-wikipedia-storms-teacups-an.html

--Utahredrock (talk) 08:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Canvassing suggestion

Re: [3]

Per WP:CANVASS, notifying users that may be interested in an AFD is generally acceptable as long as you notify everyone that may be interested and not just users that may support your opinion and that you do so in a manner that is neutrally worded and doesn't bias the readers of your notifications. I noticed in the past that you have been rather blatant in your canvassing of users that support your opinion[4][5], but at the time said you were not aware of the guideline. However, following that comment, you submitted a request on Talk:John McCain that seems to violate the campaigning portion of the guideline by wording your notification in a way that seems intended to influence how they should vote.[6] In looking at your edit history do not appear be a new user, but WP:AGF and your prior comment requires me to give you a suggestion, the proper way to contact interested editors is by leaving a message that basically says:

There is a [[WP:AFD]] discussion under way for [[Malik Abongo Obama]] that may interest you. If you wish to participate in the deletion discussion, you may do so [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malik Abongo Obama|here]]. --~~~~

Please try to avoid contacting interested parties in a manner that violates WP:CANVASS again in the future as continuation of such may result in you being blocked for disruption. Thanks! --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

• Thanks for this input.--Utahredrock (talk) 23:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

McCain talk update My efforts to solicit input have since been deleted (by another user) from the McCain talk page. As of this writing they remain on the Obama talk page, which is where they were posted first. My goal, no matter how ineptly it was carried out, was to solicit input of all types. Of course my position was no secret, and it has been pointed out to me that my solicitation language made that too clear. I will be more careful in the future.--Utahredrock (talk) 13:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

  in recognition of meritorious contributions to Wikipedia (according to my imagination: while listening to sounds of Sonoran Desert fauna

 

Song of the Chuck-will's-widow (in background)

---

Problems playing this file? See media help.

muffled by the whoosh and drip-drip-drip-drop trickling of a swamp cooler).  ${\displaystyle \sim }$  Justmeherenow (  ) 02:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks mate!--Utahredrock (talk) 04:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

See here. Cheerio!  ${\displaystyle \sim }$  Justmeherenow (  ) 18:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

.

The result of the debate was merge--with the immediate effect of delete (until some editor makes the next move). The full decision and debate can be read at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Malik_Abongo_Obama

Abongo's own article is most certainly just a matter of time.

A heartfelt thanks to everyone who took part in the consideration of whether or not to include Abongo Obama in Wikipedia over these past ten or so days.

Regardless of their position I believe everyone's intentions were good.

It will be interesting to see what happens next.

Sincerely,--Utahredrock (talk) 21:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much for the barnstar. Yes, I voted "strong keep" as I remember. No, I don't collect my barnstars in one spot. I keep them in my archives, and I do appreciate them. Thanks again! Noroton (talk) 17:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

The New Yorker cover this week underscores the notability of close Obama family members who are Muslim and the absurdity of the whole thing. As I stated in the Abongo debate, it is the context that gives Abongo notability--trying to deny that is as silly as the charges that The New Yorker satirizes on its July 21 cover. It will be a welcome day when this encyclopedia accepts that.--Utahredrock (talk) 09:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Good points, I'd forgotten about the cover of the sailors kissing (probably because I didn't see it as offensive myself) and some people probably found the cover of Obama and Clinton sleeping together offensive as well. Still, this is THE offensive cover, the one that's gotten the most attention by far. If the article for The New Yorker is to have a section titled "Offensive Covers," then it should feature more than one cover. Axeman89 (talk)

I agree. Just don't have time to research the other covers. I think the plural usage is good for potential future additions, but have no problem with singular cover now. I don't think I edited that previously, but might have. As a historian (at least in training) it is still soon to say with any certainty if this is the cover or not, but I suspect you're right there too. Cheers,--Utahredrock (talk) 17:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm proposing a merger of the 8th District campaign article into the United States House of Representatives elections in Arizona, 2008 article. I've already copied all the material. I have no problem with re-creating this later if needed, but for now I don't think there's enough material to justify a separate article. Flatterworld (talk) 16:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

This article has been rewritten. Please visit the AfD discussion to see if your concerns have been addressed. Thank you. -- Banjeboi 22:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

.....I've listed Lolo for its only AfD so far to-date -- here. At the article's present length, for it to be found within the family article would be the best, I think. In any case, I'm hoping this AfD might contribute to some sort of basic principles being figured out to apply to various family members across the board(?)  ${\displaystyle \sim }$  Justmeherenow (  ) 21:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hooo. It was basically speedy kept.  ${\displaystyle \sim }$  Justmeherenow (  ) 23:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

  This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did to Barack Obama, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. MBisanz ^talk 01:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

This edit is completely unacceptable. Changing Obama's signature line to that of Adolf Hitler is beyond the pale, and frankly you are lucky that MBisanz just gave you a warning. Any further similar edits may result in a very long block. Risker (talk) 01:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I agree it is unacceptable, and it was also unintentional. I was in a classroom and edited from an older version without realizing it. I was showing an example of vandalism and had it up on the screen.--Utahredrock (talk) 01:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

  Hello Utahredrock! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 6 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Clara Lovett - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 20:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have no idea why you insist on making her look like a political hack, but I won't stop you as you have plenty of company. Flatterworld (talk) 06:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I believe she is a politician and that her political career is the most important and relevant part of her bio. Cheers all the same.--Utahredrock (talk) 23:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Be careful when undoing large edits. Sharp criticism (i.e. "poor organization") can easily be interpreted as subjective opinion and subsequently reverted. Also, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (layout) for what seems to be the most valid guideline regarding the undone edit itself. 70.15.11.44 (talk) 13:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks - I think it's getting there. Tvoz/talk 16:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

See my reply on cites in the lead at User talk: Tvoz#General question. Tvoz/talk 18:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I was offline and didn;t see your request until now - what you did was ok. No need to remove it from the talk page, but it doesn't really matter. I'm thinking the sentence about the questionable STS135 doesn't really belong in the intro since there is no mention in the text. You might want to consider how to fix that. Tvoz/talk 07:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

The speculation over "the final" flight is intense and newsworthy. Since we mention 134 is "possibly" the final flight, I thought it was good to provide more specifics in the next sentence. Open to other arrangements. I spent WAY too much time on this yesterday! It could be added under the 134 section, but it seems noteworthy in a bigger way--Kelly "could" be the final shuttle commander. Things change so much with NASA though . . . --Utahredrock (talk) 16:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I think it has a place in the article, so I added something to the body and reduced it from the lead, but kept a mention there. See what you think. Tvoz/talk 18:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

My concern with that particular edit (in the lead) is that people may think 134 has a funding issue.--Utahredrock (talk) 20:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Oh - I'll take another look, Didn't mean that! Tvoz/talk 01:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I know that's not what you mean. I just am afraid it could be interpreted that way especially if not read carefully or by someone less familiar with the issue.--Utahredrock (talk) 01:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Just saw your edit and think that it gives the funding issue more clarity. Congress will have to do something soon on that anyway--since every month of prep costs money.--Utahredrock (talk) 02:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

←I can't get to it, but you should look at the opening sentence again - his being an astronaut, shuttle commander and veteran of shuttle missions really are all versions of the same thing, so it really doesn't work as a series. Tvoz/talk 01:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Only a fraction of astronauts are shuttle commanders . . . I need to stay away from it for now too! Other work beckons.--Utahredrock (talk) 18:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I know, but the first is his profession, the second his current assignment, the third his previous assignments - not three equivalent statuses, but rather overlapping descriptions of what he does - he is an astronaut. I think it would be better worded along the lines of David Petraeus - look at that opening - I think that is what we should be going for, and I think that would satisfy some of Mlm's concerns. Something like "Mark E. Kelly is an American astronaut in the Space Shuttle program. He served on three Space Shuttle missions, from x year to y year. His current assignment is as commander of the upcoming STS-134" etc. Tvoz/talk 21:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

←Good tips. Just did a rewrite of the opening using your advice, or most of it!--Utahredrock (talk) 00:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Much better. Tvoz/talk 00:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

; ) --Utahredrock (talk) 00:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've never instituted one - I try to stay away from those bureaucratic exercises, to tell you the truth. I'll comment in them, and if you get this going I'll try to help out with satisfying the reviewer's requests, but the GA/FA process is not my idea of a good time. I don't mean to discourage you - some people love it. I think, though, that the point of "B class" is that it still needs improvement, so I don't know if it's ready for GA consideration. Take a look at WP:GAN for how to nominate, but certainly would need to have satisfied or responded to all of Mlm's observations. Might want to let that assessment percolate a bit before trying for GA, but that's just my opinion. Others might disagree. Tvoz/talk 04:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi, you have a review at the page linked above. A few issues, mostly minor, that require your attention. The nomination is on hold to give you a chance to make the necessary fixes. Don't hesitate to get in touch if you need anything, otherwise, just ping me when you want me to take another look. Best HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 05:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I removed the image from the infobox because it was my understanding that images in infoboxes are always official images released by the studio (normally, of course, a poster). Since the photo was taken behind-the-scenes and only depicts the horse performing as Athansor, it seems incongruous in such a prominent position. I was probably too rash to delete the image completely but I do really feel it would be better placed further down the article, perhaps alongside the production information which I expanded on yesterday. It would also be good if you could find articles backing up the casting of Finn Whittrock and Listo the stallion - right now they're the only two cast members whose involvement isn't backed up by an article. Rachael89 (talk) 08:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Indented line

Finn W. is sourced from IMDB he just happens to not have a Wikipedia article yet. Wikipedia does not exist as a publicity arm of studios, and therefore the encyclopedia would have no position on using an "official" photo or not--the photo must simply be available and it needs to help tell the story of the article. This photo is appropriate because it's available and it enhances the article.

Thank you for your other edits which are outstanding.

Please do not delete the photo again. If you have any doubts that that photo is from the set, compare to the paparazzi photos where the horse is photographed (available via the external links). Also, from the timing and the geographic information available with the photo, it can literally be proven that it was taken on the set even if there is no publicly available information that's that accurate RE production schedules and locations. Unfortunately the paparazzi photos can NOT be used on Wikipedia.--Utahredrock (talk) 16:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

That's fine - I have no intention of deleting the photo again and apologize for having done so in the first place - I did so as the photo looked very strange to me on the page in comparison to other similar articles. I still feel that the photo of Listo would be better placed as illustration alongside the section on 'production' but it's only a stylistic issue so I will not move the image again if you feel otherwise. I have no doubt that the photo of Listo is authentic, having seen others photos from the set where the same horse is featured.Rachael89 (talk) 21:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks!--Utahredrock (talk) 21:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Great work finding all of those sources, and other edits.--Utahredrock (talk) 21:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:10, 7 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Society for Human Resource Management 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/Society for Human Resource Management 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:32, 10 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Brandon Lee, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Prop. Such links are 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) 06:01, 29 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your work on this article! Regarding whether or not his wife went to Puerto Rico with him, the most obvious answer is that he's remarried. However, I've been able to find any evidence whatsoever of that. YoPienso (talk) 17:12, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Sounds good. I haven't found anything either. Utahredrock (talk) 17:48, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply