User talk:PCHS-NJROTC: Difference between revisions

I'm quite busy in real life at times. If you have an important message for me and I don't get back to you here, try leaving me an email. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 20:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Archive 1
• Archive 2
• Archive 3
• Archive 4
• Archive 5
• Archive 6
• Archive 7

It states that the school is interested in being contacted in case of vandalism. Unless you (the editor adding the template) has contacted the school, this is a BLP violation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You have a new message at Maryana (WMF)'s talk page. Maryana (WMF) (talk) 00:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you nom it for AfD, I'd support it. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just sent it to AfD. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 03:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PCHS-NJROTC. You have new messages at Alex3yoyo's talk page.
Message added 19:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

alex3yoyo (talk) 19:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hate you....

Khaledmehriz 2 (talk) 04:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have started a conflict of interest investigation on IP 161.141.1.1 as that IP is owned by Enbridge corporation and has been doing a lot of pro-Enbridge edits to the Enbridge article. As you have also contributed to that article I thought you might be interested to have a look. Cheers, Djapa Owen (talk) 16:20, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:PGMS2.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:53, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Punta Gorda Middle School logo.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:PGMS2.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 09:33, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How can you be an editor on Conservapedia and wikipedia? They're like polar opposites. Besides Rationalwiki. Fungal vexation (talk) 15:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Assuming good faith) No they're not. Wikipedia follows a neutral point of view whereas Conservapedia follows a conservative POV. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 15:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention one of them seems to value facts and logic most of the time. Fungal vexation (talk) 15:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To each his own. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 15:18, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you seem like a nice person, I'll stop trying to aggravate you. Fungal vexation (talk) 15:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :-) PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 15:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your philosophical lectures at WP:AN/I are not helpful. Please do not patronise, nor use such condescending language as "kiss and make up". We aren't children here. Is that how you speak in your place of work? RGloucester — ☎ 03:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This didn't need to come here; it could have stayed at the AN/I page, but whatever. It was only a suggestion; you may take it with a grain of salt if you so choose. People in my place of work don't bicker with each other, undo each other's work over and over again, and go to manager both accusing each other of being wrong or being "Marxist propaganda mongerers" and "vandals," I had my fill of that in middle school. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 04:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was merely giving you a recommendation. It is quite right that I did none of those things. Instead, they have been done by this fellow, and I'm seeking redress. At my place of work, people are serious, they take themselves seriously, and they refrain from childish language. RGloucester — ☎ 04:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At my place of work, people act as the professionals that we are and take our lack of childishness beyond language. Seriously though, what I see at the surface here is two people who think they're right, and instead of trying to reach some sort of agreement like adults or handling things properly, they start playing tug-o-war with an article a page as a rope and then proceed to accuse each other of personal attacks and vandalism at AN/I. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 04:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then you are not seeing very far. This is part of a protracted struggle over the course of months from disruptive editors in Ukraine crisis-related topics, where I do most of my editing at present. A couple of days ago I was accused of being part of a pro-Ukrainian cabal. Now I'm a pro-Russian Marxist covering up a crime equivalent of the Holocaust. I've seen it all, at this point, and I'm not going to take nonsense any longer. I have better things to do. Farewell! RGloucester — ☎ 04:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NJROTC, I've just come across the AN/I you felt you had enough of a grasp of to involve yourself in. Not only was your advice unconstructive, you managed to be WP:UNCIVIL towards the editor filing the complaint and, quite evidently, didn't bother to check the diffs properly, or even acquaint yourself with the content in dispute. Consequently, the ANI was closed by the reporting editor rather than having to face any more condescending suggestions and heckling from you. Only one administrator had the chance to weigh in, and other involved editors were denied the opportunity to discuss the new user's disruptive behaviour.

Considering that you don't edit in any controversial areas of Wikipedia, and that you insinuated yourself into an ANI regarding a new contributor to a WP:ARBEE area, I can't help but find myself wondering how you feel you are qualified to take over the incident report and harass the reporter. Essentially, you disrupted the process, did not assume good faith, and turned it into your personal battleground. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how choosing not to take sides in the content dispute (policy dispute, which ever you prefer to call it) constitutes assuming bad faith (I'm sure they both had good intentions), and I fail to see how suggesting the two editors discuss the matter rather than come to AN/I to try and get each other blocked/banned/topic banned/etc was disruptive, but I don't see the sense in arguing about it. Perhaps my choice of words could have been better, but I still don't see how anything I posted was WP:UNCIVIL towards any particular user. As for WP:BATTLEGROUND, I don't see it. What I see is a content dispute that made its way over to dispute resolution, which, IMO, is the proper place for it (either there or ArbCom, since ArbCom is involved in the matter). At any rate, it's history now. I see there's another thread over at AN/I now. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 17:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is being sent to you as a member of WikiProject Hospitals

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Hospitals for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (shout) @ 09:52, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PCHS-NJROTC. You have new messages at Gilliam's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

– Gilliam (talk) 23:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:PCHS-NJROTC. Would you mind if I delete User:PCHS-NJROTC/EDU? I know you mean well so please don't take offense. However, school IP Talk pages are highly visible and user warnings should be refer to official policies and not to subjective commentary. Alternately you can add Template:Essay at the top and stop adding it to user talk pages. Thanks.– Gilliam (talk) 07:45, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Beach drifter is at it again, I see. Yes, this is indeed what happens when someone edits as an anon to do his dirty work and then gets away with it (and I fully believe the only reason he took responsibility for the IP's actions is because he knew it wouldn't end well if he didn't and a checkuser had to get involved). But that's ancient history now. That template was a WP:BOLD move, stating the truth, and I personally don't see anything wrong (or against policy) with it. Although school IP talk pages may be seen by thousands of users, I wouldn't consider them highly visible as compared with other pages on Wikipedia, some of which are seen by millions of people (the templates on school IP talk pages like {{Shared IP edu}} are a different story). While WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't the best argument, well, it does. I also distinctly remember another template that said something like "Why do you vandalize the wiki? You're just going to get your school blocked." But, if you don't like it, I'm not going to stop you from deleting it; it's not worth an edit war. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 14:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I did link to policy in that template, both the vandalism policy and the blocking policy. Thing is, I would have linked to an official policy for dealing with schools, but there is no such policy. The only other appropriate policy I can think of to link to is WP:AGF, and if anyone thinks that's being actively followed for school IPs, they are delusional (the attitude towards school IPs by admins is that all schools are filled with immature students and therefore need to be blocked; indeed kids will be kids and they're not completely wrong, but that's still not following assume good faith). PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 14:36, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SCHOOLBAN. Perhaps a single link to that page would give student vandals an idea of the consequences for their actions.– Gilliam (talk) 00:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That page refers to a very specific type of problem, while those kind of IPs do much more than just that. I think linking to that may discourage good faith editors from editing their schools' articles as well, and there are a lot of good faith edits to school articles that come from school IPs. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 21:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man - yeah my edit was fine to remove. Would you mind reverting the 2014–15 Football League Championship page to the 17:03 version? Someone added an entry to one of the tables on the page which caused a massive formatting issue with everything below. My "test" was me fumbling around seeing if something would work to fix it. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.219.88.140 (talk) 18:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and undid the unreferenced addition that broke the table as a quick fix. Thanks for contributing to the encyclopedia! PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 19:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PCHS-NJROTC! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 20:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember what I used as a password for PCHS-NJROTC at Simple English Wikipedia, or even if I made that account. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 15:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the nomination--I was waiting for that article to be created and for a storm like this to kick up. But given the outrage and the coverage, there was no way in which this was ever going to go toward delete: Jesus himself couldn't have pulled that off in the current atmosphere. I hope you understand my closing rationale. Best, Drmies (talk) 01:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the note. I see there was quite a debate going on over there. I'm normally an inclusionist, but if there was ever an example of NOTNEWS (in my opinion). Alas, this is not the consensus of the community. 76.6.194.216 (talk) 01:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Port Charlotte High School.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 23:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello from Portugal,

about this comment which you removed (please see here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:84.90.219.128&diff=697904018&oldid=697666143), just to notify you that I responded in kind, albeit it less aggressively. This Colombian punk has been subjecting me to vitriolic abuse for two years for a mere difference of opinions on the Quique Sánchez Flores article. Back in the day, several people agreed with my approach and the article had one name, now, after further new evidence, most people agree with his approach, cool with me for I know how WP works after nine years here.

But this will not be tolerated. Remove my message too if you will, I have vented all I had to vent. Happy 2016 --84.90.219.128 (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I have already reverted myself, but the "person", through other IPs, continues with the harassment. I will not stoop to his level now, a promise, only REVERT and IGNORE. --84.90.219.128 (talk) 19:17, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I almost hate to bring this up since you've had your current username for almost 10 years now, but I'm worried that your username might violate the prohibition in WP:username policy on usernames that represent the name of a group or organization (in this case, the Port Charlotte High School Naval Junior Reserve Officers Training Corp). Your previous username, GO-PCHS-NJROTC, seems okay (as per the "WidgetFan87" example in WP:ISU), but your current username seems to be implying shared use. You might want to consider changing it, especially if you plan on seeking administrative privileges as you state on your user page. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:54, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahecht: Fair enough. How about PCHS-NJROTC Alumni? Or DMorris-PCHS-NJROTC? Go-PCHS-NJROTC sounds too much like something a cheerleader would say. I knew each and every one of the cheerleaders on the squad at my school and they were sweet girls, but it seems more of them than not vandalize Wikipedia vs contribute, so I don't want to look like a cheerleader. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages) Jesus Christ loves you!} 23:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alumni is plural. You are an alumnus. But I came here to ask you to please remove the inappropriate religious proselyting from your sig. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:27, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you like my new signature better? PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Growing tired of this project day by day.} 17:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is better strictly speaking, though it sort of seems like you are trying to make a point. HighInBC 20:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Buh da da dah da, I'm lovin' it! TJH2018talk 21:08, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I take it you're saying you like the signature, but why the otherwise random McDonald's reference? Thought you were a troll at first... PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Growing tired of the bullshit day by day.} 22:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Save a policy based reason, my suggestion would be to ignore flying pigs. John from Idegon (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would you consider removing your RfC? It really wasn't properly formatted (there was no specific point to be discussed). With an RfC in place, changes are not supposed to be made to the subject of the RfC til it closes. Which is 30 days. Other eyes are on it now...that should suffice. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PCHS-NJROTC. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 17:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

TJH2018talk 17:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @TJH2018: I shot you a reply. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Growing tired of the bullshit day by day.} 19:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:PCHS-NJROTC/MiddleEastBlock, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:PCHS-NJROTC/MiddleEastBlock and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:PCHS-NJROTC/MiddleEastBlock during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Safiel (talk) 04:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Note that I am neutral as to whether this page should be kept. However, I am nominating since evidently at least one user has taken offense. Safiel (talk) 04:30, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Government block has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And also:

• Template:Corporate block (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Mosque block (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Public terminal block (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Christian church block (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Jewish temple block (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Church block (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

are Tfd'd. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you got elected to the school board. Awesome job. See you around. Chiigt (talk) 03:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PCHS-NJROTC. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why this site is not valid for citations? Who determines this policy? Is there a list of off-limits sources? RobP (talk) 05:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the words of @Fyddlestix:, "Rational Wiki is user generated. Our policy on reliable sources explicitly rules sources like that out."See here. Rational-Wiki fails WP:RS. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 18:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Will review this page! RobP (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know it was a while ago, but thank you for the award. I know I used to annoy you, and it really means a lot to me. Sincerely, LBHS Cheerleader (talk) 01:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Just please stay out of trouble. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 13:29, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PCHS, I saw your post about open proxy check and did some searching. The only other IP used in the /24 range has been this one. I know the range is much bigger but this might point to your guy as this post combined with this block log indicates that it is the editor for this SPI case. I don't know if this matches to the person giving you problems but it gives you a direction to look. Also, you may try looking at the larger /16 range to see if you spot anything.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:15, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 22:52, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding that discussion, since responding there might strike you as bludgeoning...

I've never read RationalWiki and I don't see how anything I said could be said to represent "fondness". So I'll stick with my idea that I've been misinterpreted. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:04, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I could be thinking of someone else, but today I have not the time nor the interest to hunt down who said what I was thinking you said, so you win. To be blunt, I really don't care about the petty details of who said what or even winning, I care about maintaining a quality encyclopedia, which is what WP:EL is designed to do (the WHOLE policy, which R-W fails in spirit, IMO). I try to be nice to him (and I know he can read this), but I honestly feel this is all about FCP wanting to "win", and that's not what WP is for. Have a nice rest of your day. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 13:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've made 5 edits to Talk:Vaginal steaming. You've made 33. I've made 1 edit to WP:ELN. You've made 8. Yet you repeatedly accuse me of WP:BLUDGEON.

I enacted your suggestion to move discussion to WP:ELN. Yet you repeatedly accuse me of WP:WIN.

I've added criticism (and pushed to add more) to RationalWiki. I've disclosed my COI on every post. Yet you repeatedly accuse me of WP:SPAMMER & WP:PROMOTION and threaten me with WP:COIN & WP:ANI.

I had hoped the discussion on Talk:Vaginal steaming would yield consensus on RW's status under WP:ELNO, WP:ELYES, WP:ELMAYBE. Instead it is bogged down with your back-and-forth and your incessant links to WP policy & "embarassing" RW pages.

I believe you are either [1] blinded by your bias or [2] acting in bad faith. I have resolved not to further interact with you.

Have a nice day. FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 16:23, 15 August 2017 (UTC):[reply]

I have to agree that you personally have not been committing WP:BLUDGEON, but others have (who may not even be Rat-Wikians, but for whatever reason have strong opinions on the matter). I'm sorry to hear that dealing with shenanigans from that site pouring over into Wikipedia for the past eight years (before I even knew that Conservapedia or Rational-Wiki even existed) makes me a biased person, but I care too much for the integrity of the encyclopedia to watch this kind of controversy happen over and over again. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 16:43, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had a friend over last night and briefly showed them the wiki-drama. They must've [1] added the "trolling and then [2] got cold feet and undone the edits. I didn't even notice until this morning. I don't know why I'd troll you -- you'd just use the trolling as evidence against me. (I also don't know why I'd troll myself.) I genuinely wish to wash my hands of you, politely. FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 19:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that's also what happened when you added the link to your own website after a previous discussion had just concluded that your links don't belong on Wikipedia, right? PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 21:16, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. I added that link because I thought it was relevant. You seem to ignore that Talk:Michel_Chossudovsky#RationalWiki_link was settled because of WP:BLPEL rules, rather than WP:EL rules. I cannot imagine why. FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 22:07, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Virtual Times 2.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:38, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33

Hello, PCHS-NJROTC. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change

[[User:PCHS-NJROTC|<font color="red" face="Comic Sans MS">PCHS-NJROTC</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:PCHS-NJROTC|<font color="black" face="Comic Sans MS">(Messages)Have a blessed day.</font>]]</sup> : PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.}

to

[[User:PCHS-NJROTC|<span style="color: red; font-family: Comic Sans MS;">PCHS-NJROTC</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:PCHS-NJROTC|<span style="color: black; font-family: Comic Sans MS;">(Messages)Have a blessed day.</span>]]</sup> : PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.}

—Anomalocaris (talk) 08:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Test [User:PCHS-NJROTC|PCHS-NJROTC]] ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 12:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Test2 PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 12:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for updating your signature! —Anomalocaris (talk) 01:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey PCHS, I'm looking for some help updating articles for Craig B. Thompson, José Baselga, and Joan Massagué Solé, who are all executives at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. The articles' overall quality was a little lacking, so I've been working on adding content and supporting it with better references. I saw you're a member of WP:HOSPITAL and I was wondering if you could check out some of my suggestions, even if the articles are somewhat tangentially related. I've posted on their respective talk pages, as well as the WP:ACADEMICS talk page, but I've been having trouble getting any kind of feedback from anyone. I've got their respective sandboxes here: Thompson, Baselga, Massagué. If you've got the time to take a look, even at just one of the articles, I'd greatly appreciate it.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 23:57, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FacultiesIntact: I will see what I can do, but I'm awfully busy with school right now. A lot of the time when I'm editing it's when I'm at work and it's slow; I have ADHD and recent changes patrolling on Wikipedia stops me from pointlessly walking in circles, but the web filters there make research for article building practically impossible. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 03:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries if you don't have the time! I wouldn't want to pile onto your workload. If you find a chance, that's fantastic, but I'll keep looking for someone who's got more free time on their hands.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 03:52, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I was the one making the constructive changes on the FPHS website. However one of my classmates that sits next to me saw me editing the page and decided to add his own (the addition of "Mike Hawk" which was a joke). I believe you were concerned with "Kelly Green" as one of the schools colors, however Kelly Green is an actual color. I was not vandalizing when it came to adding the achievements of the Cyber Patriot and Crew team, and I cited a source to it. I took your advice and created an account as to differentiate myself from the schools IP Address. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chef ardy (talk • contribs) 14:33, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Charlotte Regional Medical Center Logo.png. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:13, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

imo I think if one user did generally the same kind of edit after a warning is already given, a "more strict" warning should be added to let this user realized it is really inappropriate for its edit. Is my thinking incorrect? But I think I also should think maybe a few of my warning is too strict in this point... --Stang 13:53, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Stang: For one thing it's Broward County Public Schools, one of the largest school districts in the United States, so prior edits probably aren't the same person that did the most recent edit. For another thing, it's probably just some middle or high school kid messing around, not someone on a plot to undermine the encyclopedia; since they're not plastering people's names on articles or anything, I think one level one warning should suffice for now (usually with schools if someone posts something really bad I call and report it rather than go for a widespread block, but that's just me). PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 13:58, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per your request, I have removed the rollback feature from your account. Thank you for your past contributions with it. Mz7 (talk) 02:18, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So you are biased against me in Conservapedia too? --Kingdamian1 (talk) 21:18, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]