User talk:Hodgdon's secret garden

censorship

Note this reversion, http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Anthony_Weiner&diff=432926151&oldid=432926091 which leaves out THE essential item of the entire incident μηδείς (talk)

Nomination of Etch-a-sketch gaffe for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Etch-a-sketch gaffe 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/Etch-a-sketch gaffe 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 template from the top of the article.

A page you started (Tech4Good awards) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Tech4Good awards, Hodgdon's secret garden!

Wikipedia editor Dicklyon just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Good start. I adjust caps per MOS:CAPS and the cited source.

To reply, leave a comment on Dicklyon's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Speedy deletion nomination of Keepapitchinin

Hello, Hodgdon's secret garden,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Crystallizedcarbon and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged an article that you started, Keepapitchinin for deletion, because it seems to be an article that has been already decided by a consensus decision to be unsuitable for inclusion.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. If the page is already deleted by the time you come across this message and you wish to retrieve the deleted material, please contact the deleting administrator.

For any further query, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Crystallizedcarbon}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:51, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Bare URLs

Hey, I just wanted to let you know there's a tool here: [1] that fixes bare URLs (somewhat) automatically. It works pretty well for the most part, though some sites (like the New York Times) might require some manual tweaking. David O. Johnson (talk) 23:23, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

"K word" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect K word. Since you had some involvement with the K word redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Jalen Folf (talk) 19:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Impeached?

Be careful on that page, there is a small group of editors weaponizing policy arguments to drown out and oppose the numerous requests to reword the article so it reflects both the "impeached" and "not technically impeached" views in a NPOV manner. They tried taking me to admin and calling me disruptive, but I called their bluff by highlighting the hypocrisy in their arguments. They were fully engaged in the debate, using media headlines to claim the "impeached" view is official and any other view is "fringe"...except they ignore the other policy that media headlines are not reliable sources. If you bring that up, they'll lose their minds.

I support your proposal of "WP ought give more weight to both interpretations than currently". While FL or OK law doesn't have any bearing on federal procedure, those judicial rulings and historical precedent (House of Commons procedure) cited by Feldman do have bearing on defining the procedural steps of an impeachment process, because the Constitution does not do that. A simple search will reveal dozens of reliable source articles which cite the "not technically impeached" viewpoint and many more that support it.

Since reliable sources mean nothing to them, in order to overturn that gang of biased editors, you'll probably need to rally support from others to out number them. If you can get the several editors who have already voiced this concern on-board, as well as some others, let me know and I will join in supporting your rfc. Best wishes!Rotaryenginepete (talk) 04:21, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Lol. David O. Johnson (talk) 05:17, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

!Rotaryenginepete - in order to overturn that gang of biased editors. How amazing you call this out! there is a small group of editors weaponizing policy arguments. So obvious! So, Just what is Wikipedia? Is this platform merely an extension of the legacy "news" media? Seem overt Trump Derangement Syndrome is acceptable. 174.158.162.115 (talk) 23:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)