text:
Talk:Tort reform in the United States

For the life of me, I can'f figure out how to post my own comment on this thread. So I'm "editing" someone else's comment.

My comment is this: the Wiki tort reform article is so biased and unfair that it should be discarded completely. Nothing in it is free of material spin, misstatement or highly partisan content.

It is possible to write an entry on this subject in a fair way. For example, see the intelligent and balanced comment on the subject "frivolous litigation." This comment points out that the political definition and the legal definition have little n common, and defines each in neutral terms that I believe are fair to everyone who has ever used the terms. On rechecking this article, I decided to reorder the presentation there to move the lay definition of "frivolous litigation" to the top of the article, because that is the meaning used by the vast majority of Americans. I did not change the substance, retaining the legal definition completely. The latter describes how a few thousand active trial attorneys and judges use the term, and does so in terems that I believe are accurate.

When I have time, perhaps I'll try to rewrite this entry in a balanced, politically neutral way. In the meantime, I suggest that Wiki insert a two or three paragraph explaining basic terms and leave out everything else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barrister noir (talk • contribs) 00:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see How to archive a talk page.

Add new subjects to the bottom of the talk page.

Previous discussions:

 * Archive 1 (discussions occuring prior to 16 October 2005):
 * Archive 2 (discussions between 20 September 2005 and 16 October 2005):
 * Archive 3 (discussions between 16 October 2005 and 22 April 2006):
 * Archive 4 (discussions between 22 April 2006 and 18 July 2006):

Ideology
I don't want to argue whether the ideology of tort reform is "right" or not, I'm just trying to establish whether or not the tort refom movement has one, and whether its commonly acknowledged enough to insert a few lines about it. Just to reiterate, the quote I offered was from The Common Weal (a liberal think-tank) and was part of an anti-tort reform article. Here it is again...
 * ...from section| The Ideology of Tort Reform
 * But a number of tort reform arguments rest upon a broader, underlying ideological foundation, one built around the ideas of personal responsibility, free markets, deregulation of business, and privatization of government functions. For example, the values of self-reliance and personal responsibility are evoked in tort reform arguments regarding the dangers of cigarette smoking and fast food. The free enterprise theme is frequently evoked in arguments for limiting punitive damages, because of the potential harm to a company or a whole industry. By promoting an anti-government, pro-corporate philosophy that encompasses many issues, the Right has laid the ideological groundwork for public acceptance of these tort reform arguments. The problem is that the right's ideologues have warped the values they claim to espouse, and the danger is that they have taken them to extremes.

They go on to cite an article by Joesph Kellard in Capitalism Magazine that links "social responsibility" presumed by the anti-tobacco crusade (and underwritten by its litigation) to statism and withering away of individualism. They obviously disagree with his findings, but they concede that these perceptions and ideology are at least partly responsible for the popular rise of "tort reform" as a policy issue. All I'm saying is that if an anti-tort reform think-tank can quote Kellard, paraphrase the ideological framework he suggests and attribute it broadly to the tort reform "movement", than why can't we?

Again, I'm refraining from any argument about tort reform in these pages. I'm just going to focus on writing a clear, concise article that describes it accurately. I'd offer the "list" I've been defending as my evidence. There are two reforms in that list that I'm morally and intellectually opposed to, and that I would vote against if given a referendum. Can anyone guess which two? I hope not.--HelloDali 21:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I was tired when I wrote what I said, as I stated. Yes, I agree we should not debate tort reform here; I probably should not have.  I am continually astounded at the idea of privatizing government functions, then taking away the public's right to redress harm.  But that's enough.  It sounds like you are suggesting that the article be revamped.  I don't disagree, since it is still badly organized.  A bit of history would be good, but we also need to keep in mind this is not a book.
 * You already told me both 'reforms' you find objectionable. I agree.  And yes, we need to have an article that describes what it is, and what the objections to it are - concisely, without a long drawn out argument 'pro' and 'con' that turns into a tirade.  That was my biggest objection to the article as it was.  And, if anyone can make the article better written and tighter, I think you can. Go ahead and make some changes and we can discuss.  jgwlaw 01:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I did? Wow, I must have been tired too.  I'll try my rewrite a bit later tonight or tommorrow morning, then you can edit or revert based on feedback.--HelloDali 20:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep, you did. Go for it..jgwlaw 23:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

 * This article, beginning with its name, is an inherently POV article that is doomed to be bogged down in an ideological struggle. --Whitfield Larrabee 01:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Political Section of Tort Reform
All the issues in the political segment of are directly related, they deserve to be grouped under one section. I did not change any of the paragraph content, but I did change some bold headings. Vinnievesh 11:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Some issues with this article
These are issues I see in the article. Unless there are objections, I plan to correct these things:

Cool Hand Luke 20:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not clear to me that gun immunity is a particularly good example. Reformers seem to argue for broad changes more vigorously than those targeted to specific industries. Unless an explanation is given, I think we should use something like damage caps as an example.
 * Why on earth are we citing a wiki (SourceWatch) without even specifying a specific version? This is sloppy, and it's precisely what we tell outside organizations to avoid when citing wikipedia. Although we often use political blogs to characterize avowedly partisan arguments, I think we can do better than this source.
 * In the Ford Pinto case, the company did take into account the value of human life—they used a monetary value, however. Their economic analysis is actually why they were criticized. Discussion of the case needs substantial revision.
 * The Center for a Just Society does indeed oppose some tort reforms, but not all. They've got a surprisingly thorough four-part series on the subject. The only reference I could find to the RU-486 argument is from the chairman here; it's not on their site. I'd prefer to cite him if no other source is available.
 * The "predicted ideological stereotypes" of Supreme Court justices discussion: we should include this section, but it's not so surprising that Scalia—perennial foe of constitutional substantive due process—would be in the minority.
 * Discussion of the "players" seems enormously POV. The article documents corporate interests on the pro-reform side in excruciating detail, but doesn't do likewise for the anti-reform groups. Instead, the article describes AAJ in its own favored terms: "to promote a fair and effective justice system ..."
 * Similarly, there are law professor on all sides of the debate.

 * The article as it currently stands is a complete one-sided disaster. It probably needs to be rewritten from scratch.  I've taken an older version and started playing with it in my sandbox here.  The entire Commonweal Institute screed should be cut to no more than a sentence under WP:Undue weight. (I'd complain also that it's wildly inaccurate and misleading, but I understand that factual accuracy doesn't matter under WP:A.) -- THF 21:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

 * It probably should be trimmed as undue weight. If not, and if you still perceive misrepresentation, you can cite reliable sources that question their conclusions. If none exist, synthesizing your own counterarguments would be original research, but it seems you understand that. Cool Hand Luke 22:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The players section will be removed until the obvious bias is corrected. Financial interests of trial lawyers, and economic impact of tort reform on the healthcare system and local economies must be included. Motivations of AAJ need to be included as well.

Erie Doctrine
Howdy folks! Ijust added the Erie doctrine analysis, and I hope it is NPOV. I tried to disclaim that regardless of tort reform merits, it may not pass constitutional muster. I am neither for nor against tort reform, I just recognized the potential Erie problems after taking Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in law school last semester. Please feel free to edit anything that smacks of bias or that is factually incorrect. Nibblesworth 17:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

 * I haven't checked it for NPOV, but I can assure you that there is a problem of WP:NOR. (Don't mean to single you out: the whole article suffers from OR and POV, and needs severe rewriting.) Your proposed addition is also in the wrong section. If you can source the claims, let's talk about putting it in the article after we do the teardown. -- THF 18:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

 * It might not be irredeemably OR; looks like there's work along these lines. However, to my understanding, many reforms are proposed at the state level such that this isn't really a problem.  It's not clear which reforms will have priority and might be an issue for federal or state reforms.  The federal rules might annul state reforms in diversity cases.  This recent Idaho Law Review article frames it more like this, but argues that the federal rules should trump.  Needs citations in any case. Cool Hand Luke 20:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

 * There are some factual errors, too; Congress has the power under the Commerce Clause to create federal question jurisdiction, as it did in the Class Action Fairness Act. The changes to the Federal Rules of Evidence that stemmed from the Daubert decision were federal reforms that apply to diversity cases heard in federal court.  "Legal challenges would quickly nullify the reform" violates NPOV, especially in the abstract. -- THF 23:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

 * THF, I don't know if there is a decent sized body of knowledge out there in regards to Erie and tort reform. The Idaho case Cool Hand Luke cited is the only one I know if (in that article is the case I cited in the edit I made).  I understand your concern, and I'm not sure there's any real way to fix it (aside from deleting it).  Although, I don't know if OR is required, as it is simply a matter of applying FRCP and Erie Doctrine.  However, I'll leave it to you guys (obviously the ones better equipped) to decide what should stay or go, and I understand whatever decision you make.  Just thought it was an important part of tort reform that seems to get overlooked and awful lot.  Nibblesworth 03:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Of course this is OR. The applying the FRCP is not like simple arithmetic, and the article I mentioned shows precisely why: a law professor disagrees with the District Court of Idaho even though both are dealing with the same rules and doctrine. We simply can't speak in an authoritative tone on this issue as if there's no controversy, especially since we seem to be carving out a position that has no support in any heretofore published source.
 * In either case, this is a small wrinkle in tort reform that can probably wait until better authorities are available. Might make a good journal topic for you though. Cool Hand Luke 04:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Even if it were "simply applying the FRCP and Erie Doctrine" (which it is not) it would be OR because it would be, at best, impermissible synthesis, which also violates the WP:NOR rules. Not just the facts need to be referenced, not just the analysis needs to be referenced, but the analysis needs to be referenced with respect to this issue.  There's also the "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" issue.  Not to pick on you individually: the whole article suffers from Wikipedia policy violations of WP:OR, WP:SYN, and WP:POV, and needs to be scrapped and rewritten; one can't look at it as a model of how to write an article. -- THF 10:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Nibblesworth, your edits to your essay also seem to have some misunderstandings of legal issues. Why say both "federal question jurisdiction" and "42 USC 1983"? 42 USC 1983 cases are within federal question jurisdiction! You also underestimate the power of Congress to affect state civil procedure. There could be a mechanism like that in South Dakota v. Dole, where Congress withholds Medicare funds to states that fail to adopt malpractice reform; there's legislation posed in Congress now providing federal funding for pilot programs for health courts to states that wish to adopt reform using that methodology. Congress can also use federal preemption to shut down state tort law in areas within the commerce power (and the preemption debate is underrepresented in this article).

Of course, Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth, but the factual problems of your essay demonstrate why there is a WP:NOR rule. -- THF 10:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

 * I'd be surprised if any "tort reform" bills that actually have a chance of passing Congress would be affected by the Erie doctrine. Most of this section should be removed unless it can be shown to have some real-world application.  The treatment of Daubert as procedural might merit a reference to Erie, but, other than that, I don't see the point.  For example, suppose Congress passed one of the insurance industry's wet dreams, a cap on noneconomic damages.  Suppose the bill expressly applied to all actions in state and federal courts.  I don't see that Erie would have any relevance.  The bill is either a valid exercise of the commerce power, in which case it could constitutionally be applied to all cases in all courts; or it isn't, in which case it's unenforceable in any court. JamesMLane t c 17:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

 * I guess I'm looking at it from this perspective (but it's clear from the responses here that I'm just too daft to try and contribute). Congress cannot compel state courts to adopt FRCP.  If tort reform were enacted by Congress, it would be codified in FRCP only. (10th Amendment)  Unless individual states decided to adopt the same FRCP tort reform codes, any state tort claim appealed to a federal court would not be subject to the FRCP tort reform (damages is not cut-n-dry procedural issue--it is far too tied into a plaintiff's ability to find justice to not be substantive).  Any federal question tort claim (primarily 42 usc 1983) could go to fed court and be subject to the new tort rules, but what plaintiff would file in Federal court when he knows he's capped in his damages and subject to paying legal fees if he loses?  He'd go straight to state court, which would constitute "forum shopping", which is one thing Erie seeks to get rid of.  If the defendant used forum non conveniens to get it moved to federal court, plaintiff could merely argue the second aim of Erie which is to reduce unequal administration of the law (he'd get $$$ in state, screwed in fed, so fed would have to go state.  Regardless, I do believe there is a better way to debate the topic instead of telling me I'm a silly douche without a clue.  Nibblesworth 18:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

 * No one has insulted you. And civility goes both ways. I don't think your legal analysis is correct, but this debate is irrelevant: Wikipedia is not the place to debate substantive law; the whole point of WP:NOR is to avoid these debates on the Wikipedia cite.  You're welcome to contribute; but additions need to comply with WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV.  The essay you've added does not.  I encourage you to understand those three rules, as it will avoid a lot of frustration with trying to edit Wikipedia. -- THF 19:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Nibblewsorth, I agree with you that people should debate the topic without calling you names, but I also agree with THF that the discussion here has been fairly civil. (You think you've been insulted?  You should see some of the flame wars that have erupted on Wikipedia!  Some people have been banned from the project for their violations of No personal attacks.)

 * As for the substance, I don't agree that Congressional "tort reform" would have to be incorporated in the FRCP. Some proposals, like the Idaho restriction on pleading punitive damages, are indeed procedural, but most (like my example of a cap) are substantive.  If an Idaho statute were to ban punitive damages entirely, as I'm sure some people would like, then that statute would affect the injured victims' substantive rights.  Under Erie, the ban on punitive damages would apply in state and federal courts in Idaho, wouldn't it?  Therefore, it seems to me that any interplay between Erie and "tort reform" would be confined to a fairly narrow range of cases.

 * Finally, I don't think you're "too daft" to contribute -- but you have to recognize two points. First, we do have established policies that must be adhered to.  They can be somewhat confusing and intimidating when you're not used to them.  You should try to contribute within those policies, but if you inadvertently violate one, someone else will come along and fix it.  That brings me to the second point: This is a collaborative project.  Anything that anyone writes is subject to being edited mercilessly.  Some people just aren't comfortable with that; they, not you, are the ones who aren't capable of contributing to Wikipedia. JamesMLane t c 19:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

 * I agree with JamesMLane. You can contribute but you must do it our way. I think that's what he means when he says we have established procedures. Also, if you write something and anyone attempts to changes it, you can revert their edits and cite the rule: "This is a collaborative project. Anything that anyone writes is subject to being edited mercilessly.  Some people just aren't comfortable with that; they, not you, are the ones who aren't capable of contributing to Wikipedia." But you can NEVER cite this rule as justification for changing someone else's work, you can only cite it for your own work. I mean, you can ALWAYs cite it for changing someone else's work, but you can NEVER ALLOW anyone else to cite it for changing your work. I think I've got it now. It IS confusing at first, but you'll get the hang of it soon enough. Help me out here, JamesMLane, am I doing this right? I think it all boils down to if you are a better bully than the other editor, you get to cite the rule that says any editing of your work can be "edited mercilessly" (i.e. removed). I think that's it. BTW, the Erie Doctrine is incoherent. So, however you explain it or apply it is OK. Beauty. Simplicity. Law. RUReady2Testify 21:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

 * RU, I would like to help you out here, but I don't understand what you're getting at. It's not an issue of what anyone is "allowed" to cite.  It's simply a fact that the Wikipedia environment is one of merciless editing.  Some newcomers don't understand that.  They're more used to Internet discussion boards where they can say whatever they want and their comments may be attacked but won't be edited.  I cited the policy to try to explain how Wikipedia is different, not to win any argument. JamesMLane t c 08:17, 27 July

2007 (UTC)

 * What I am getting at is that it appears from my observations that the "your work will be mercilessly edited" rule is used as a reason to revert someone else's editing of your the rule-citer's work. Example Joe writes text. Jane mercilessly edits Joe's text. Joe, offended, reverts Jane's edits back to Joe's original text. Jane, seeing all of her work deleted, objects. Joe replies, "Hey, if you can't take the heat, stay out of the Kitchen," and condescendingly "points out" to Jane, who is quite familiar with the rules, btw, "Welcome to Wikipedia, please read the rules, particularly the one that says your work will be mercilessly edited" preempting Jane's justification of her work by such citation, which she thought was implicit anyway. There you have it. How to cite the mercilessly edited rule. RUReady2Testify 16:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

This Entry Points Up the Absurdity of Neutrality as a Goal of Wikipedia
 RUReady2Testify 21:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC) extended essay deleted per WP:TALK and WP:NPA

 * TedFrank has a point here. The talk page is not a chat room, and the talk page for an article is not meant to question guiding policies of the site. I've looked over your commentary and cannot find one concrete suggestion for improving the article. Please see WP:TALK. Cool Hand Luke 02:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

 * RU, take it to the talk page of WP:NPOV, please. And also review WP:NPA.  THF 06:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not an "extended essay" it is a few paragraphs inviting discussion on what this article should be about, particularly whether the article can or should have a NPOV.

Deletion of this topic and or this contribution to the discussion page is politically motivated and therefore violates the NPOV rule.

Deletion of this without discussion without even readiong it (I strongly suspect) and especially without allowing me any input is intended to disrupt the goal of wikipedia, to provide clear accurate and unbiased information, also violates the vandalism rule.

This discussion might also be appropriate elsewhere--but only by analogy--but it is directly related to the entry here--tort reform.

My assertion is that the article on tort reform is (1) factually wrong (2) it is factually wrong because it is biased.

To delete this assertion violates various rules of Wikipedia, particularly those against bias and vandalism.

Preliminary note: I just had to undo a vandalism by user Ted Frank (deleting the discussion below). "Ted Frank" attempted to justify his vandalism by asserting that my addition to the discussion here is not appropriate because this is a place for discussing how to make the article on tort reform better not a place for discussing tort reform. To the extent that "Ted Frank" deludes himself or attempts to deceive others that the two are separable his vandalism will succeed. How can you discuss making an article on tort reform better if you can't discuss the (by no means universally accepted) concept itself. Such brute-force attempts to enforce the neutrality rules or even as here rules for discussion are nothing short of vandalism--an illegitimate alteration of the text (even or perhaps more so in the talk page) unilaterally effected to the end purpose of (in this case) suppression of a particluar fact (what "tort reform" actually is).

(This paragraph is about the article on tort reform and how to make it better, and asking for collective discussion. Please do not delete from discussion on tort reform article. RUReady2Testify 16:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)) The first sentence of this entry reads: The terminology tort reform describes a change in United States civil law system to improve litigation efficiency or reduce litigation's adverse effects on the economy.

(This paragraph is about the article on tort reform and how to make it better, and asking for collective discussion. Please do not delete from discussion on tort reform article. RUReady2Testify 16:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)) "Wikipedia" (i.e., whatever individuals have a stake in the article) could attempt to be neutral and change it to: The term "tort reform" refers to the hotly debated notion that tort suits (lawsuits, such as a class actions, seeking money damages for civil, as opposed to criminal, wrongs) and the money judgments they result in, are out of control, causing harm to the economy, and need to be reined in.

(This paragraph is about the article on tort reform and how to make it better, and asking for collective discussion. Please do not delete from discussion on tort reform article. RUReady2Testify 16:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)) But the term "tort reform" is a great example of Orwellian Newspeak. The "trial lawyers" are somehow responsible for huge sums of money awarded to people harmed by those who are not only able to pay without blinking, but could have easily afforded, but for their own greed, to prevent the harm in the first place, had they not adopted a decision formula that accounts for the (highly predictable) variables of the cost of prevention before the harm orrurs versus the cost of paying judgments for wrongful death, disfigurment, maiming, etc., after the harm. In nearly every case where there has been a large money judgment against a defendant, there has also been a pre-marketing-pre-harm-pre-lawsuit decision made by that defendant that it (usually a corporation) can afford to pay the judgment. "Tort reform" is just gravy. Any time you as a businessman can reduce they expenses that you expect to have and you already know you have budgeted for you make out ahead. It is guaranteed profit because it is a single component cost.(fire the union workers by moving to India or moving the factory from Detroit to Kentucky and hiring "poor Southerners" and later "undocumented immigrants" or charging market rates for government-backed student loans, and so on). Isn't there a lawyer on each side in a trial? Which one is the "trial lawyer" (the bad guy)?

(This paragraph is about the article on tort reform and how to make it better, and asking for collective discussion. Please do not delete from discussion on tort reform article. RUReady2Testify 16:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)) Why is it the trial lawyer's fault that when a client walks in with a problem and he files a lawsuit and the judge doesn't send him to jail for suing over things that aren't legal claims, and then the judge lets the jury hear the case and then the judge instructs the jury on the law, and the jury renders a verdict and assess money damages and then the judge who cvan either raise the amount of money or lower it before entering a judgement, enters a judgment that the defendant must pay $X, it is somehow the lawyer's fault?

(This paragraph is about the article on tort reform and how to make it better, and asking for collective discussion. Please do not delete from discussion on tort reform article. RUReady2Testify 16:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)) Tort reform is the movement to limit the end result of tort lawsuits, that is, it a the movement pushed by large corporations to limit how much they have to pay as a result of a lawsuit claiming that they harmed someone (this is not controversial: nobody else cares because anyone else who loses a big suit would simple not pay and that's the end of it).

(This paragraph is about the article on tort reform and how to make it better, and asking for collective discussion. Please do not delete from discussion on tort reform article. RUReady2Testify 16:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)) Tort reform does not refer to any attempts by large corporations (the only possible defendants with anything to lose) to limit their liability by improving their products to make them less dangerous or harmful to the public. Obviously if a baby seat never killed any babies, there would be no parents of dead babies suing the maker of the baby seat. Or whatever.

(This paragraph is about the article on tort reform and how to make it better, and asking for collective discussion. Please do not delete from discussion on tort reform article. RUReady2Testify 16:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)) Tort reform posits that the economy is harmed by large money judgments against lawbreakers in the same way that the economy is harmed by other laws, like speeding. "If I can break the law and not have to pay such huge portions of my profits to those whose arms and legs I have cut off while making my product, I will have more money and that is good for the economy," say the corporations. If I can speed to work and not have to pay any tickets for the pedestrians I kill along the way, I will get to work more and I will have more money," I say.

(This paragraph is about the article on tort reform and how to make it better, and asking for collective discussion. Please do not delete from discussion on tort reform article. RUReady2Testify 16:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)) The hot debate in tort reform is over whether (1) the economy is actually better off if more people are allowed to keep their arms and legs and lives (by discouraging reckless or negligent (not on purpose) arm-and-leg-cutting and killing with fines and requiring the negligent to pay for the arms and legs they already cut off), and (2) whether--even if the economy is better off with more armless and legless and dead people but richer companies--whether it should still be wrong to go arount cutting off arms and legs and killing people just because you want a little more money (the money they save is almost alwys extremely small (to save $1.00 per unit, some companies and their insurance companies will allow X number of deaths caused by their product).

(This paragraph is about the article on tort reform and how to make it better, and asking for collective discussion. Please do not delete from discussion on tort reform article. RUReady2Testify 16:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)) This tort reform debate is extremely hot in the sense that although there are no reasonable people in favor of tort reform, it is the position pushed forward by the owners of Conngress and the courts. Still, those owners of government do not get to vote in this country (USA), and they must convince the voters to vote for the political candidates that will do their bidding--such candidates are nearly always a member of one or the other of the two major political parties (about half from one party, half from the other). So the hot debate is not so much a partisan debate along "party lines" (note you will not be able to see such lines ona cloudy day, so don't bother to look for them), as it is along the lines of which elected or appointed officials are willing to come out of the closet as kept mistresses, and openly do the bidding of their masters. It's a true nail-biter. The "debate" has been keeping "voters" on the edge of their seats for years, even though numerous laws have been passed that could count as tort reform, if the counters were honest. For example, the 1995 Securities Litigation Reform Act, and numerous court decisisons (there's one in front of the Supremem Court now--wonder if the little guy will win?) which limits the ability of defrauded mom and pop investors in teh stock market to sue fraudulent companies--many of which are operating under the guise of a Fortune 500 firm, as Enron did.

(This paragraph is about the article on tort reform and how to make it better, and asking for collective discussion. Please do not delete from discussion on tort reform article. RUReady2Testify 16:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)) Tort reform is everywhere like love in the 60s. It is the wave of the future. Someday all of us will wear ankle bracelets and be glad we are not behind bars thanks only to tort reform.

(This paragraph is about the article on tort reform and how to make it better, and asking for collective discussion. Please do not delete from discussion on tort reform article. RUReady2Testify 16:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)) So, in conclusion, it is plain that an objective or neutral POV on tort reform will be difficut to achieve. Nonetheless, I applaud those who tried to square the circle and turn lead into gold. However, anyone claiming to be attempting to achieve neutrality on tort reform is by their own admission working for the devil. RUReady2Testify 21:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Added again with additional explanation. RUReady2Testify 16:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I just noticed that the neutrality of this article is disputed (not by me). In light of that, I again ask that my post here, and my invitation to discuss how and whether neutrality can be achieved, not be deleted. It is highly relevant, and relatively urgent (bearing in mind the rule that there are no emergencies on Wikipedia, in time convergence on Truth will be achieved. RUReady2Testify 16:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Note the comment above by Cool Hand Luke concerning his inability to "find one concrete suggestion for improving the article" in what you wrote. Your case for the relevance of your comments would be much stronger if you could draw the link between your general observations and the specific question of how the article should be worded. JamesMLane t c 22:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Cutting and pasting your notice onto every paragraph is not helpful. This page does not exist for a generalized discussion on the topic. How about this: tell me one specific thing you think should be changed about the article in 50 words or less. It's clear you think it's biased in some way, tell me how. Cool Hand Luke 01:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

 * My post began with a concrete suggestion--a proposed revision of the existing first sentence of the article, which revision I proposed as a complete first sentence. RUReady2Testify 22:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The supreme court recently limited punitive damages to a single-digit multiplier cap. This is a problem because now, risk-management departments can recommend business models that involve bad-faith dealings and committing intentional torts on an ongoing basis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.241.103 (talk) 10:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Vagueness
There are a few issues that should be included in the article.

- is tort law in the United States a federal or state matter?

- is tort law judge-made or statute driven?

- does the US use common or civil law?

- how can reform be achieved: through legislation, supreme court decisions or constitutional amendment?

- what groups are lobbying for tort reform?

The Four Deuces (talk) 04:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Towers Perrin report
One of the many failings of this article is that it fails to mention the Towers Perrin report, clearly important in the debate. Does anyone object if I add a single sentence mentioning and citing it on January 4? THF (talk) 18:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

 * In my opinion Ohnoitsjamie's reasoning for removing Lbook52's contribution is flawed. I'm not aware of any policy that says that edits of SPA should be removed and Lbook52's contribution is not a spam. -- Vision Thing -- 22:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Content fork
The article Tort reform seems to consist in large part of stuff almost identical to this article, except that both articles are being edited separately. Any admins around who know how to handle this? Questionic (talk Questionic 21:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Good point - they should be merged because all the information in both articles is about tort reform in the US. I have proposed a merger. By the way, there is nothing in this article about how tort reform would be carried out. The Four Deuces (talk) 07:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I agree with the proposal that this article should be merged with Tort reform -- there is not enough unique material here to justify a separate article. Instead, there is substantially a duplicate of the material in the general tort reform article but with improvements and/or corrections being added more or less randomly to one or the other. Most of what "tort reform" there is (since the term is used only to refer to lawsuit-damage-reduction initiatives that have been a prime goal of tobacco and insurance companies here for the past quarter century, not to any other proposed changes to tort law) has taken place in the United States, so it is not Wikipedia's fault that most of the tort reform article relates to this. Questionic (talk) 14:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

 * That's because THF just deleted all references to countries other than America on the tort reform page, and replaced it with something he'd written on January 13th.
 * More generally the idea that "tort reform" is a debate which has mainly taken place in the States, shows a lack of awareness beyond the States.  Wik idea  19:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

 * So actually yes, it is entirely appropriate to merge the content on the current tort reform page with this. Much of it is worthwhile, though written, as I said on the talk page there, in an op-ed style by a Republican lobbyist with a history of belligerence. Then the previous global approach can be restored and improved on.  Wik idea  20:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

 * Yep, they should be merged. Looks like a content fork right now. Cool Hand Luke 21:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

 * Support merger. The current version of the tort reform article is a factually inaccurate original research mess.  The two should be merged, and Questionic's version should be used as a starting point, with some international material taken from the tort reform article if it is referenced. THF (talk) 02:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:Tort reform in the United States


text:
Talk:Prozzäk

There's probably really no way to answer this, but...
Can Prozzak be appropriately credited with popularizing "Sucks to be you" (and various leet variants) in Canada in the late 1990s? Oh, I love the deep questions we can inquire on here. :) Samaritan 02:53, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I dunno, but I think the song is so good we can go ahead and credit them with it. - Doug the Aquacell Guy (Sunday, April 23)

 * I heard the phrase before the song, but after the song it really exploded. I imagine they heard the phrase before and got the idea for the song. 68.43.152.39 01:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

 * This question has been resolved, along with the others, so I would suggest a removal of the "tone or style" flag. It represents an unbiased view of the group, thus the tone would seem to be acceptable in that light. As a side-note, as a new editor to Wikipedia, I'm not sure on the etiquette regarding talk-pages and whether or not grouping suggestions is frowned upon, as it wasn't listed in the talk-page guidelines. Cheers. Kazhawrylak (talk) 15:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Prozzäk or Prozzak?
The logo says Prozzak, I can't find a single ä on the official page, the fanpage listed here or the myspace page. --BodyTag 03:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I see the other albums say Prozzäk, is it possible they have changed their name? Like Smash Mouth used to be Smashmouth. --BodyTag 20:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

 * In the video for "Sucks to be you", Simon and Milo are on a private yacht named "Prozzäk", so it seems the diaresis is used. I assume it's a Heavy Metal Umlaut. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.182.109 (talk) 20:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

 * In one album's art-work, Cruel Cruel World, there is no umlaut, but in the other two non-compilation albums, there is. Majority rules? Or being that Cruel Cruel World is their newest album, it might be worth mentioning that they changed their name to Prozzak. Kazhawrylak (talk) 15:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

missing information?
some time ago i checked this page and there was alot more infomation but now it is a stub. is there any way to find out what happend to all the infomation? - Hinro 2-10-06

We could add the information from the Legend of Simon and Milo clip. 68.95.142.252 23:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Big Change
Should it be noted how Prozzak changed from the no-neck Simon and tall muscular Milo to this dark, cynical Simon&Milo? A lot of fans were outraged by this...
 * Seems to me that the entire purpose of Prozzak is to poke fun not only at modern romance, but at the goofier excesses of pop music. If this is their way of throwing emo into the pastiche, well... 65.212.93.34 20:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Cruel cruel world.jpg
Image:Cruel cruel world.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 13:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

ready set go, greatest hits
The discography doesnt indicate that ready set go is a compilation of previously released tracks, and it should —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.22.108.58 (talk) 07:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounding "European"?
Sounding European is sort of impossible, as there's more accents, dialects and languages in Europe than I care to count. since they're speaking English, and have a London accent, I'll change this to "British", rather than European as that's probably a bit non-specific. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.30.99 (talk) 23:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Milo is intended to be non-descript Germanic, I believe, unless he's really horrible at doing a Brittish accent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.167.22 (talk) 19:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

"was"
I mean, I know they haven't done anything in years, but is there a reason on why "was" and not "is"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.42.247 (talk) 05:43, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Recent Singles
Prozzak have released 4 singles recently, only one has been confirmed as appearing on their next album, should the box stay "Unreleased" as it was, or keep the recent edit to say "Forever 1999" for the 3 unconfirmed singles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.198.150 (talk) 19:00, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Prozzäk


text:
Talk:Mneme (moon)

Untitled
Pronunciation is per the OED. Because they use the IPA, they need separate pronunciaions for the UK and US, which have differences of vowel length, but here both are covered by the spelling pronunciation nee'-mee. --kwami 02:53, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Mneme (moon)


text:
Howard Community College

Howard Community College (HCC or Howard CC) is a public community college in Columbia, Maryland. It offers classes for credit in more than 100 programs, non-credit classes, and workforce development programs. In addition to the main campus in Columbia, courses are also held at two satellite campuses.

History
In 1966, Howard Community College was founded by the Board of Education in Howard County and formally authorized by the Howard County Commissioners Charles E. Miller, J. Hubert Black, and David W. Force. The board recommended that the college would operate under a separate budget than the school system. The first HCC board would be drawn from the current state appointed county school board. HCC was approved as the State of Maryland's 14th community college in late 1967.

The school was built on a prehistoric Native American settlement which became the site of the Dieker farm, which was later inherited by Gustave Basler's (1858-1938) wife Dora Dieker. Alfred Christian Bassler sold his share of his father's 400 acre Cedar Lane farm to Community Research and Development to be the site of the project; the sale included a trade of land in Clarksville off of Shepherd Lane. His family home, barn, granaries and silos were demolished in 1969. A groundbreaking ceremony in June 1969 began construction on 119 acre in the heart of the planned community of Columbia that, at the time, was just beginning to take shape. In October 1970, the first classes took place in a new structure called the Learning Resources Center, now the James Clark Jr. Library Building, with 10 full-time faculty and just over 600 full-time students attending classes in HCC's nine credit programs.

HCCs first president was Dr. Alfred J. Smith Jr, former dean of faculty at Corning Community College, hired in June 1969. In 1973, he signed a five-year contract to remain as president. In 1976, Smith faced scrutiny for accounting expense allowances from the County which funded 35% of operational costs. Dwight Burrill took the role of dean in 1981, serving for seventeen years. In 1980, the Columbia Film Society moved to the HCC performing arts center for weekend movies.

Dr. Mary Ellen Duncan became president of the college in 1998, followed by Dr. Kathleen Hetherington in 2007. In 2019 HCC won the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award in the category of education. That same year, the original ST and Nursing buildings were remodeled and renamed Academic Commons and Howard Hall, respectively

Campus
The HCC main campus is located in Columbia, MD and is made up of 14 buildings, including a Welcome Center, located 35 minutes south of Baltimore and 50 minutes north of Washington, D.C. There are satellite campuses in Laurel at the Laurel College Center (LCC) and Training & Development Solutions Center.

In 2003, a new instructional building was completed, the Mary Ellen Duncan Hall for English, Languages & Business, which includes a landscaped area now known as The Quad. The Student Services Building, completed spring 2007, is the most recent building added to The Quad. The Student Services Building was renamed The Rouse Company Foundation Student Services Hall in March 2007. In 2013, the Health Sciences Building opened and the HCC Men's Track and Field team won the 2013 NJCAA Outdoor Track and Field.

The Peter and Elizabeth Horowitz Visual and Performing Arts Center opened in the fall of 2006. The center is home to three performance venues, two art galleries, two dance studios and multiple instructional facilities for HCC's Arts and Humanities Programs. Performance venues include the 250-seat Horowitz Center Studio Theatre, the 119-seat Monteabaro Recital Hall and the 424-seat Smith Theatre. The center caters to numerous community events in addition to home of the Howard County Community Dance Festival, HCC Music Guest Artist in Residence Series, HCC Jazz Festival and Rep Stage.

In November 2014, a groundbreaking was held for a 145,300 sq ft four-story Science Engineering and Technology (SET) building. The facility replaces 260 parking spots to provide labs focused on Howard County Economic Development Agency initiatives including 3D printing and cybersecurity. The SET Building opened for classes in the summer of 2017, providing dedicated laboratories, a rooftop telescope observation area, and more than 1,000 total classroom seats.

Academics
There are eight academic divisions at Howard Community College. They include:
 * Arts & Humanities: encourages students to exercise and grow their talents and creativity through the Arts and Humanities
 * Business & Computer Systems: presents innovative and up-to-date curricula for beginning baccalaureate programs or for business careers
 * Continuing Education & Workforce Development: noncredit courses for home, work, and life
 * English & World Languages: mastery of essential academic skills in reading, writing, critical thinking, cultural and global competencies, and world languages proficiency
 * Health Sciences: career programs in a range of specialties and transfer programs
 * Mathematics: curricula for pure mathematics disciplines and applied mathematics areas
 * Science, Engineering & Technology: transfer programs to prepare students as well as career programs
 * Social Sciences & Teacher Education: focus on the relationships between people and within their environments

title: Howard Community College


text:
Design Museum

The Design Museum in Kensington, London, England, exhibits product, industrial, graphic, fashion, and architectural design. In 2018, the museum won the European Museum of the Year Award. The museum operates as a registered charity, and all funds generated by ticket sales aid the museum in curating new exhibitions.

History
The museum was founded in 1989 by Sir Terence Conran, with Stephen Bayley as inaugural CEO, after the two men had collaboratively created the highly successful exhibition space known as The Boilerhouse at the Victoria and Albert Museum (V&A).

Shad Thames site
The museum was originally housed in a former 1940s banana warehouse on the south bank of the River Thames in the Shad Thames area of London. The conversion of this warehouse altered it beyond recognition, to resemble a building in the International Modernist style of the 1930s. This was funded by many companies, designers and benefactors. The museum was principally designed by the Conran group, with exhibitions over two floors, and a "Design Museum Tank" exhibition space out by the waterfront. A large scale sculpture titled The Head of Invention by Sir Eduardo Paolozzi was installed in the area between the museum and the Thames.

Kensington site
In June 2011, Sir Terence Conran donated £17.5 million to enable the museum to move in 2016 from the warehouse to a larger site which formerly housed the Commonwealth Institute in west London. This landmark from the 1960s, a Grade II* listed building, designed by Robert Matthew/Sir Robert Matthew, Johnson-Marshall and Partners architects that had stood vacant for over a decade, was developed by a design team led by John Pawson. Fit-out of the Design Museum's new home was carried out by Willmott Dixon Interiors.

The Design Museum opened in its Kensington location on 24 November 2016. The move gave the museum three times more space than in its previous location at Shad Thames, with the new Swarovski Foundation Centre for Learning, 202-seat Bakala Auditorium and a dedicated gallery to display its permanent collection, accessible free of charge. The new building was the subject of a profile on the Sky Arts programme The Art of Architecture in 2019.

The move brought the museum into Kensington's cultural quarter, joining the Royal College of Art, V&A, Science Museum, Natural History Museum and Serpentine Gallery.

Deyan Sudjic succeeded Alice Rawsthorn as director of the Design Museum in 2006. In 2016, Alice Black was appointed co-director. In 2019, Tim Marlow was appointed as director and chief executive.

Galleries
The top-floor space under the museum roof houses a permanent display, Designer Maker User, with key objects from the museum's collection. A restaurant, members' lounge, residency studio and an events and gallery space are also located on the top floor.

On the first floor, a design and architecture reference library is a resource for students, educators, researchers and designers. It also includes archive material relating to the history of the museum. The Swarovski Foundation Centre for Learning is a suite of learning facilities including a design studio, creative workshop, two seminar rooms and a common room. The Design Museum offices and main reception, a meeting room and a film studio are also located on the first floor.

On the ground floor, the largest gallery in the Design Museum showcases a programme of temporary exhibitions. Accessible from both Kensington High Street and Holland Park, the atrium acts as an events space. A main staircase from the atrium gives access to all floors and offers views to the first and second floors and the hyperbolic paraboloid roof.

A double-height space spanning the two lower levels, Gallery Two hosts a programme of temporary exhibitions dedicated to architecture, fashion, furniture, product and graphic design. The Bakala Auditorium seats 202 people and provide a purpose-designed space for a programme of talks, seminars, debates and public and private events throughout the year. The basement accommodates a collections store, exhibition preparation spaces and a locker area for visitors.

Award schemes
The Design Museum has an award scheme which Brit Insurance sponsored from 2003 until 2011.

Designer of the Year

 * 2003: Jony Ive
 * 2004: Daniel Brown
 * 2005: Hilary Cottam
 * 2006: Jamie Hewlett

Design of the Year
Designs produced over the previous 12 months worldwide are eligible. A number of design experts are invited to nominate up to five projects each, falling into the seven categories of architecture, transport, graphics, interactive, product, furniture and fashion. Since 2015, there have been six categories: architecture, fashion, graphics, digital, product and transport. Beazley became exhibition sponsor in 2016.

 * 2008 The 'One Laptop Per Child' project, designed by Yves Béhar for Fuseproject
 * 2009 Barack Obama poster designed by Shepard Fairey
 * 2010 Folding Plug designed by Min-Kyu Choi
 * 2011 Plumen 001 lightbulb, designed by Samuel Wilkinson and Hulger
 * 2012 The London 2012 Olympic Torch, designed by BarberOsgerby
 * 2013 The website "GOV.UK", designed by the Government Digital Service
 * 2014 The Heydar Aliyev Center in Baku, Azerbaijan designed by architect Zaha Hadid
 * 2015 Human-organs-on-Chips designed by Donald Ingber and Dan Dongeun Huh
 * 2020 Teeter-Totter Wall, designed by California-based architects Ronald Rael and Virginia San Fratello.

title: Design Museum


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The 145's

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 01:12, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The 145's
Tried to search on the topic. Not getting results related to what the person was trying to say. The closest thing was a site with punk rock videos and the videos were from 1998. The person who wrote this suspecting vanity article stated the band was created in summer 2004. The rest of the top 100 results are nothing related to music. All Music Guide doesn't have them so...delete. --Anonymous Cow 02:59, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete. Non-encyclopedic, vanity. --Briangotts 03:03, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vanity. --Randolph 04:06, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 07:04, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, vanity.Gorrister 18:49, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, band vanity. Vlad M V  ٭ talk 15:03, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


text:
File:Heteromeles arbutifolia.jpg

Northern California Toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia) in early winter, with fruit.

title: File:Heteromeles arbutifolia.jpg


text:
Talk:Fluorine chloride

does this chemical even exist? It seems that the article started as vandalism and now contains only blatantly obvious information. VFD? Matt 02:59, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Fluorine chloride


text:
Talk:Alexander Dubček

Clarification needed?
A clarification of how he died: there are conspiracy theories (probably for the same reasons that they are applied to any other political figure who dies violently/in an unexplained manner).

His autobiography should be mentioned. Jackiespeel 14:58, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC).
 * Done. TomyDuby (talk) 09:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Strontium
The section about strontium poisoning needs more refrerences with clickable links. dima 12:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

"Better" Image
New finds are readily accepted; be bold!  Aar  ►  02:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Passively supported??
He "passively supported the union between Czechs and Slovaks..." What does "passively supported" purport to mean? He either supported union or he didn't. Clarification requested. 72.229.55.38 (talk) 05:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alexander Dubček. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20010903231650/http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/Surreptitious-Radiation-Administration.htm to http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/Surreptitious-Radiation-Administration.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:05, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Alexander Dubček


text:
User talk:Ravenhull

Unless I'm mistaken, you asked somewhere else whether you should just accept the losses to Star Fleet Universe coverage as inevitable or rally to defend what you have. I say to you: Rally! These are the actions of a single and disturbingly trigger-happy user, not the inescapable cold hand of deletionism come to bring down all that stands against it. --Kizor 01:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Lyran Star Empire
A tag has been placed on, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a. If you can indicate how Lyran Star Empire is different from the previously posted material, or if you can indicate why this article should not be deleted, I advise you to place the template hangon underneath the other template on the article, and also put a note on Talk:Lyran Star Empire saying why this article should stay. An admin should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 4 under General criteria. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please feel free to use deletion review, but do not continue to repost the article if it is deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. We welcome your help in trying to improve Wikipedia, and we request you to follow these instructions. Gavin Collins 10:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Star Trek ship classes
The main problem that you faced was that your sources were sstrcitly non-canon (i.e. not from the screen series, but from secondary or tertiary authorities). It is the same frustration that was felt when the ships in the original Tech Manual were overtaken by the "History of Spaceflight" book, and that, in turn, was overwritten by TNG and by ST:E.

Also, since one man's meat is another man's poison, there will always be things that you think are non-fancruft which somneone else will fightr for tooth and nail, and things they detest that you support. This being so, the argument of "What aboutt hat article over there" is, in Wikipedia, the equivalent of a hopeless last-ditch, rather than a stalwart defence.

My sympathies, and please continue to contribute -- Simon Cursitor 08:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Your reversion of User:Den-dede's edit to 2007 Tabasco flood
I agree that the text in question did not belong in the article. I put that text in the Tabasco article. I would urge you to encourage prospective Wikipedia contributors by helping them get their text in the right place if it is encyclopedic but just in the wrong article. I know it takes more time than reverting but it can be quite off-putting to a new user if their text is simply deleted rather than fixed and put in the appropriate place.

Thanks!

--Richard 17:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Mobile, Alabama
Thanks! I think that the grammar and such is still weak in a least a few spots and that is certainly not my strong suite. I've have my significant other read it a couple of times but his grammatical skills aren't much better than mine.(though compared to some of the crap I've seen on here, mine doesn't seem too bad) Otherwise I'm not sure, the intro may need more work, I've had the hardest time with it but it finally seems to be getting close to WP:LEAD standards. I hope that I've made it as inclusive as possible and haven't overlooked anyone. Just giving it an honest indepth assessment from your perspective would be a help, I look at it and it all begins to blur together at this point. I don't want to go too far and start screwing it up either, I been in summarizing and removal mode, which can be dangerous. I don't want to renominate it myself again, I got my feelings hurt last time(but I did see his point after I was done being offended and taking it personally) Altairisfar (talk) 10:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, I finished that Amtrak reference, check it for accuracy, but I think you already had the basics there. Thanks for helping and please keep it coming.  Altairisfar 23:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Despite what I said above, I decided to go ahead and renominate the article for WP:GA again, I hope that it can at least not be quick-failed this time. Altairisfar 07:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of United Federation of Planets (Star Fleet Universe)
United Federation of Planets (Star Fleet Universe), an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that United Federation of Planets (Star Fleet Universe) satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/United Federation of Planets (Star Fleet Universe)& and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of United Federation of Planets (Star Fleet Universe) during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Judgesurreal777 21:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 28th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 04:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 4th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Dpw-supes.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Dpw-supes.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 11th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 18th and 25th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 3rd, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:SFU Nation Alt
Template:SFU Nation Alt has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. fschoenm (talk) 17:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 13th and 17th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 23:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Alpha Octant
Another editor has added the  template to the article Alpha Octant, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the  template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 14:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Interstellar Concordium
An article that you have been involved in editing, Interstellar Concordium, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Interstellar Concordium (2nd nomination). Thank you. Jobjörn (talk) 15:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 24th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of United Federation of Planets (Star Fleet Universe)
I have nominated United Federation of Planets (Star Fleet Universe), an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/United Federation of Planets (Star Fleet Universe)&. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Jobjörn (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Gorn Confederation
An editor has nominated Gorn Confederation, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 20:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 31st, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 21:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

article note
Klingon Empire (Star Fleet Universe) is up for deletion. just want to let you know. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

PS238
Hi there! You've contributed to PS238 page in the past. I just updated it with details from the RPG. Fancy checking out my edit? Thanks. JustIgnoreMe (talk) 16:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 7th and 14th, 2008.
Sorry, it seems that the bot quit before completing its run last week. Here is the last two weeks' worth of Signpost. Ralbot (talk) 08:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 21st, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 16:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

AT&T vandal strikes again
It's been a while since the anonymous AT&T vandal has caused a stir, but this time he's come back with a vengance to the American Telephone & Telegraph and Bell System articles. KansasCity (talk) 00:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 2nd and 9th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 12th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 19th and 26th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

SCA.svg
Any luck finding out anything about the SCA CoA image? I enquired about it myself a while back (I think the email address I wrote to was questions@sca.org), but I never got any response. Wilhelm meis (talk) 03:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 9, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 23 and 26, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 30, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 04:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 7, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 14 and 21, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 28, August 9, 11 and 18, 2008.
Sorry I haven't been sending this over the past few weeks. Ralbot (talk) 05:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 05:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 25 and September 8, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 21:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 15, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 05:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey y'all!
We're going to be having our first Mississippi meetup next month, and I would love it if you'd like to come out! A few of us will be staying overnight, so if you feel up to it, we could have a meet and greet that night and then breakfast the next morning and talk about Wikipedia and everyone's areas of expertise. Let's show 'em how it's done Southern-style! Mike H. Fierce! 22:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 17, 2008 and before.
Because the Signpost hasn't been sent in a while, to save space, I've condensed all seven issues that were not sent into this archive. Only the three issues from November are below.

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 10:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Gavin.collins RFC/U
Hello. A request for comment on user conduct has recently been filed regarding Gavin.collins. Since you had endorsed at least one summary in the prior Request for Comment, I thought that you would want to know. You can see the RFC/U here. Thank you. BOZ (talk) 00:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 24, 2008 through January 3, 2009
Three issues have been published since the last deliver: November 24, December 1, and January 3.

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 24, 2008 through January 3, 2009
Three issues have been published since the last deliver: November 24, December 1, and January 3.

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 10, 2009
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)  §hepBot  ( Disable )  20:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 17, 2009
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 00:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 24, 2009
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Delivered at 04:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC) by §hepBot  ( Disable )

Wikipedia Signpost, January 31, 2009
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 21:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, February 8, 2009
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  at 22:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — February 16, 2009

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

Delivered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  at 07:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — February 23, 2009
This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:

 * Philosophers analyze Wikipedia as a knowledge source
 * An automated article monitoring system for WikiProjects
 * News and notes: Wikimania, usability, picture contest, milestones
 * Wikipedia in the news: Lessons for Brits, patent citations
 * Dispatches: Hundredth Featured sound approaches
 * Wikiproject report: WikiProject Islam
 * Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week.

Delivered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  at 21:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 2 March 2009
This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:

 * Books extension enabled
 * News and notes: Stewards, Wikimania bids, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's role in journalism, Smarter Wikipedia, Skittles
 * Dispatches: WikiProject Ships Featured topic and Good topics
 * Wikiproject report: WikiProject Norse History and Culture
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 08:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 9 March 2009
This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 10, which includes these articles:

 * News and notes: Commons, conferences, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Politics, more politics, and more
 * Dispatches: 100 Featured sounds milestone
 * Wikiproject report: WikiProject Christianity
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delivered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  at 00:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 16 March 2009  Unsubscribe · Single-page · Full edition »  — 16 March 2009

 * News and notes: License update, Commons cartoons, films milestone, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Manufactured scandal, Wikipedia assignments, and more
 * Dispatches: New FAC and FAR appointments
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delivered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  at 23:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC) == Wikipedia Signpost : 23 March 2009 ==

 * From the editor: Reviewing books for the Signpost
 * Special report: Abuse Filter is enabled
 * News and notes: Flaggedrevs, copyright project, fundraising reports, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Alternatives, IWF threats, and more
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

== Wikipedia Signpost : 30 March 2009 ==

 * From the editor: Follow the Signpost with RSS and Twitter
 * Special report: Community weighs license update
 * News and notes: End of Encarta, flagged revisions poll, new image donation, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Censorship, social media in schools, and more
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 20:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

== Wikipedia Signpost : 6 April 2009 ==

 * Special report: Interactive OpenStreetMap features in development
 * News and notes: Statistics, Wikipedia research and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Wikia Search abandoned, university plagiarism, and more
 * Dispatches: New FAC and FAR nomination process
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject China
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

== Wikipedia Signpost : 13 April 2009 ==

 * License update: Licensing vote begins
 * News and notes: WMF petitions Obama, longer AFDs, UK meeting, and more
 * Dispatches: Let's get serious about plagiarism
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject Color
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 16:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

== Wikipedia Signpost : 20 April 2009 ==

 * Book reviews: Reviews of The Wikipedia Revolution
 * Wikipedia by numbers: Wikipedia's coverage and conflicts quantified
 * News and notes: New program officer, survey results, and more
 * Dispatches: Valued pictures
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject Film
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

== Wikipedia Signpost : 27 April 2009 ==

 * Book reviews: Reviews of Lazy Virtues: Teaching Writing in the Age of Wikipedia
 * News and notes: Usability study, Wiki Loves Art, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia Art dispute, and brief headlines
 * WikiProject report: Interview on WikiProject Final Fantasy
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

== Wikipedia Signpost <span style="color:#666; font-variant: small-caps; font-size:80%; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">: 11 May 2009 ==

 * News and notes: Wikimania 2010, usability project, link rot, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Quote hoax replicated in traditional media, and more
 * Dispatches: WikiProject Birds reaches an FA milestone
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject Michael Jackson
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

== Wikipedia Signpost <span style="color:#666; font-variant: small-caps; font-size:80%; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">: 18 May 2009 ==

 * From the editor: Writers needed
 * Special report: WikiChemists and Chemical Abstracts announce collaboration
 * Special report: Embassies sponsor article-writing contests in three languages
 * News and notes: Wiki Loves Arts winners, Wikimania Conference Japan, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Arbitrator blogs, French government edits, brief headlines
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject Opera
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 13:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Shadowrun4.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Shadowrun4.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 08:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Campus Ambassadors wanted in Troy, Alabama
Hi! I'm leaving you this message because you're listed as a Wikipedian in Alabama. The Wikipedia Ambassador Program is currently looking for Campus Ambassadors to help with Wikipedia assignments at Troy University, which will be participating in the Public Policy Initiative for the Spring 2011 semester. The role of Campus Ambassadors will be to provide face-to-face training and support for students on Wikipedia-related skills (how to edit articles, how to add references, etc.). This includes doing in-class presentations, running workshops and labs, possibly holding office hours, and in general providing in-person mentorship for students.

Prior Wikipedia skills are not required for the role, as training will be provided for all Campus Ambassadors (although, of course, being an experienced editor is a plus).

I know Alabama is a big state, but if you happen to live near Troy and you are interested in being a Wikipedia Campus Ambassador, or know someone else from Troy who might be, please email me or leave a message on my talk page.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 16:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Altline light blue
Template:Altline light blue has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:SFU/Text
Template:SFU/Text has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ravenhull


text: User talk:68.54.188.231

title: User talk:68.54.188.231