User talk:Jon698

Auto-patrolled?

Have you considered requesting the autopatrolled permission? You seem to meet the general criteria (only stumbling block being a couple of copyright notices) and this could be helpful in reducing the WP:NPP backlog. If you have questions or wish to discuss don't hesitate to ping me here or leave a comment on my talk page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:54, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted

Hi Jon698, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Swarm ♠ 05:37, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hello Jon698. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia; if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

• URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Swarm ♠ 20:24, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

May 2019

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  -- Scott Burley (talk) 03:45, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Unblock Appeal

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Jon698 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have made one account and used it for illegitimate purposes. However, I ask that I be unblocked, but banned from participating in AFD discussions and only be allowed to edit as my contribution history shows that I am the only person that has edited articles such as George W. Bush 2000 presidential campaign, Alaska Libertarian Party, and Libertarian Party of Massachusetts and there are many articles like Bush's that are in need of greater editing to be completed or to be proper for Wikipedia. I came to Wikipedia two years ago to improve political articles and I have went too far. I acknowledge that I have broken the rules, but as this is the first time I ask that I be given a second chance. If I renege on this then I wish for the next blocking to be permanent.

Decline reason:

You outright lied about the connection before being blocked. You can take the standard offer. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:17, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• Comment I understand. I am not good at apologies especially online and I have had the account since 2017. I rarely used it and did not use it for disruptive editing. I ask that it will be reconsidered and that I be limited to only editing or at least limited to editing only George W. Bush 2000 presidential campaign as it is close to completion, but I am the only one who edits it. Jon698 Jon698 14:52, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment If I may chime in here and say that Jon has been incredible in improving our coverage of american politics.
  However, you don't even seem to be that sorry for what you did... You've been using this sock of yours since at least 2017 (Diffs from Scott Burley: [1] [2]). That is long term scrutiny evasiason.
  Have you disclosed all your accounts publicly? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with MJL in that it looks like you've made some really significant contributions to the project and it would be a shame to lose you as an editor. This seems like a textbook case for WP:SO. Barring any substantive objections, I wouldn't have any problem unblocking you in six months. -- Scott Burley (talk) 17:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• But not likely to happen when you continue to sock with User:DailyVermonter. -DJSasso (talk) 14:59, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

• Jon, come on... you're really hurting the case here. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:00, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Standard Offer

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Jon698 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hello it has been six months since my block in May and I would like to begin the standard offer process. My provided clear reason is Scott's statement "I agree with MJL in that it looks like you've made some really significant contributions to the project and it would be a shame to lose you as an editor. This seems like a textbook case for WP:SO." and MJL's statement "If I may chime in here and say that Jon has been incredible in improving our coverage of american politics." Also in the past six months I have improved my understanding of copyright and public domain and I hope to use it to improve the images of political/election articles and I have learned election mapping and hope to improve many Washington, D.C. election articles. The next year will be important for election/political Wikipedia editors and will have a large amount of work and I hope that I will be able to help and participate in that. It has been hard to not edit Wikipedia for six months, but I would still like to thank Scott for the block because it has helped me become less addicted to editing and MJL for helping me get a LPedia account that I could use to edit that site on if I ever had the urge to. -- Jon698 02:19, 1 November 2019 (UTC) https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListFiles/Jon698&ilshowall=1 https://lpedia.org/Special:Contributions/Jon168

Accept reason:

Per the conversation below (Special:PermanentLink/924708850), you are unblocked. Conditions for your unblock include a 6 month topic ban from Articles for Deletion and a reminder to keep aware of general sanctions pertaining to American politics and other areas as you've acknowledged. -- ferret (talk) 13:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I don't really understand how the standard offer process works and I hope that I am doing it correctly. Apologies in advance for any mistakes.

@NinjaRobotPirate: I am sorry about the ping, but I have noticed that there is a large backlog in Requests for unblock Jon698 (talk) 03:57, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

If you want your unblock request posted to the administrators' noticeboard, I could do that. Due to a quirk in policy, unblock requests that fail to get consensus at a noticeboard turn into a community site ban. The difference is mostly academic, but site bans can only be appealed at noticeboards. Noticeboard appeals are settled via the consensus of the community (more-or-less a vote), but standard unblock requests are resolved by unilateral action by a single administrator. If you don't like the idea of a bunch of random people voting to ban/unban you, the alternative is to wait for a random administrator to get around to your unblock request. That shouldn't take more than a few days, but it could potentially take several weeks. If you want to speed up the process and increase the likelihood of success, you should list all the registered accounts you've used to edit Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. I would rather wait for some random administrator to get around to my request rather than putting it up to a noticeboard vote. The only registered accounts that I used were User:DailyVermonter and User:ImBadWithUsernames. Jon698 (talk) 04:28, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: I'm willing to go forward with this unblock, if checkuser is clean (or you feel it's not necessary) and he agrees to the topic ban for AFDs that he originally proposed 6 months ago in his prior appeal. I would additionally add that he read about General Sanctions and acknowledge doing so by listing the active sanction he believes would apply to his preferred area of editing related to political topics. @Scott Burley: as info as blocking admin. -- ferret (talk) 23:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any obvious block evasion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: @Ferret: I agree to the topic ban for AFDs and as for General Sanctions sanctions could be placed on areas such as abortion, Eastern Europe, gun control, and other areas like those. Jon698 (talk) 03:00, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Jon, works for me. Also be mindful of American politics 2. This sanction is core to your editing areas. -- ferret (talk) 13:21, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

The WikiCup

Please note that the correct time to claim points for DYK in the WikiCup is after the hook has appeared on the main page. So you can claim for Ted Kennedy 1980 presidential campaign now, while some of your other submissions have been premature. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth Thank you for telling me. I am new to Wikicup this year and I will remember to wait for the rest of my DYK hooks. - Jon698 (talk) 11:11, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Bold editing

I greatly appreciate your efforts to deal with the GAN backlog, but could you be a bit more careful to follow guidelines when making changes? In particular, I would point your attention to WP:REDLINK: "Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on the subject", MOS:LEADIMAGE: "Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic; they should... illustrate the topic specifically" (rather than a closely related topic) and WP:BRD: best to discuss changes rather than restore reverted edits. You also changed "German dictator" to "Fuhrer" which could be argued either way, but in the latter case should be spelled Führer. When in doubt, it doesn't hurt to propose changes the talk page first. buidhe 23:35, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• @Buidhe: Thank you for the information. On the German dictator/Führer (Fuhrer because of my stupid English mind) wouldn't it make more sense to use Führer since everybody already know Hitler as a dictator. I will take the rest of my suggestions to the talk page. - Jon698 Talk 23:40 3 April 2020

William Jefferson Hardin

Hi-I enjoyed reading your articles; thank you for writing them. I did have to make a change with the William Jefferson Hardin article; he served in the Wyoming Territorial Legislature not the Wyoming State Legislature. The territorial and state legislatures are two different legislative chambers serving different political divisions-territorial and state in Wyoming-many thanks-RFD (talk) 13:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Wyoming Legislature template

Hi-I have to remove the Wyoming Legislature template from the article about Cathy Connolly who served in the Wyoming Legislature. The Wyoming Legislature template place the Members of the Wyoming Territorial Legislature category on the the article. This happen on some other articles. I had to go through the members of the Wyoming Territorial Legislature category and there 2 or 3 others this happen. I am not sure why the Wyoming Legislature template is doing this-many thanks-20:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)RFD (talk) 20:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I look at the Wyoming Legislature template; the template covers the Wyoming territorial and state legislatures. This would explained why he members of the Wyoming Territorial Legislatures were put on some articles that should not be put on some articles like the Cathy Connolly article many thanks-RFD (talk) 20:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Women in Red

Hi there, Jon698, and welcome to Women in Red. With the enormous experience you have of writing about politics and politicians, it's great to see you now intend to devote more of your time to women. If you haven't already done so, you might find it useful to look through our Ten Simple Rules and our Primer for creating women's biographies. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties or need assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 09:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Courtesy notice. A completely empty report by an IP with no previous edits. Meters (talk) 05:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Garcia advertising

Actually, before I reverted the Mike Garcia article I did look at the Christy Smith article and the Trump article. No campaign signs (in fact the Trump article has a photo of a building under construction, which seemed odd). Then I went to your page and was curious to see what the "objects thrown" article was about and if the Bush "shoeing" was included. I corrected that entry. I think I'm right. Rather than edit war over this, which seems pointless, I suggest you self-revert and take it to the Garcia Talk page. I had updated that page earlier by deleting the text about the interim count, which seemed pointless, given that there was a certified count, and noticed the campaign sign which I deleted. The sign is by definition "advertising." 07:15, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Jon698 Making caustic remarks in a subject line is not "taking it to a Talk page." You're obviously Wikistalking me. I really don't understand this. You know how Wikipedia operates as evidenced by your extensive and really solid work on the Dick Bond article that I created, that you added after his recent death. The Garcia campaign sign occupied a position of prominence, near its top. The Eric Swalwell campaign logo led to his website and clicking on that link led to a warning to anyone who might be accessing the site. The John Delaney article similarly is advertising, is not from an RSS, and leads to his Instagram page. His presidential campaign had to be one of the briefer on record as he dropped out in January 2020, and, if memory serves, he never reached 1% in the polls. I can't imagine how an image of his or any politician's campaign sign(s) improve(s) the article. How would your position not support the inclusion of hundreds of different signs from a major campaign to the candidate's article? Please take our differences of opinion to Talk. I've done so but you haven't. Lastly, when does an edit somehow achieve legitimacy by being "long term?" Garcia's article is fairly recent. That reasoning seems quite subjective. Activist (talk) 21:30, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

P.S. Whip position

I completely agree with you about your position on the position of whip. Seems obvious to me. Activist (talk) 21:50, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

One year!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

India Walton

Please tell me why the 15 years of India Walton's life where she worked as a nurse and became a community organizer is not worthy of being in the article. You're making it seem as though her only qualifications for being mayor was being 12 years old and helping her mom (fluff) and getting an Associates Degree.16:46, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• Um what? She didn't help her mother get a degree. SHE got the degree. Jon698 (talk) 16:47, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• Okay reread what you said and it still doesn't make sense. Where in the article does it say that she helped her mother? Jon698 (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Then what did she do with the degree? Sit around for 15 years? Oh wait - I cited her public resume saying she worked at Kaleida for a decade but you deleted it. Along with details of the grassroots organization she founded. Tell me why that information is insignificant please. 16:53, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not a place for listing random jobs people had. Jon698 (talk) 16:54, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Your writing style is trash, and you deleted everything myself and others worked on for 12 hours because you went to bed with a draft already made, and got mad when you woke up and saw the work had already been done. Do I have that about right? 16:56, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• @TheNewMinistry: Lmao you have been on this site since 2005 and you are acting like a baby. Grow up or I am getting an admin. Jon698 (talk) 16:58, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• BTW @TheNewMinistry: if you are going to accuse other people of being trash writers then maybe you should learn how to sign your comments first. Jon698 (talk) 17:02, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I just fixed the paragraph you wrote. Again. You're welcome. TheNewMinistry (talk) 17:10, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• @TheNewMinistry: Nice to see that you finally learned how to sign comments after a mere sixteen years. Good on you. Jon698 (talk) 17:10, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Maybe explain who Byron Brown is before referring to him by his last name. You know, like I did before you deleted it. Might help people understand what they're reading. TheNewMinistry (talk) 18:09, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• @TheNewMinistry: "criticized Mayor Byron Brown" "Brown, who had served as mayor for four terms" seems pretty obvious who he is. Jon698 (talk) 18:13, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

You don't understand paragraph structure. At all. You can't introduce someone by full name in one section and then assume the reader will remember them in the next (unless it's the primary subject).TheNewMinistry (talk) 18:17, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

"became active in politics with activism " - do you realize how awkward that phrasing sounds? Of course you don't! TheNewMinistry (talk) 18:15, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• "took an interest in" last time I checked Wikipedia isn't a newspaper. Jon698 (talk) 18:16, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Last I checked it's not a robot either, so maybe you should stop sounding like one. TheNewMinistry (talk) 18:20, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• Lmao do you think the audience have no attention span. People can remember the last name of a guy who was just mentioned in the previous paragraph. Literally every piece of literature does that. Jon698 (talk) 18:21, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Jon, while I have warned TNM about making personal attacks, I want to state on-wiki for the record that I don't think your behavior in this discussion is particularly professional either. Snotty comments about using signatures and comments about editing tenure are unnecessary and aren't conducive to civil discussion. Both of you ought to take a break from this page. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:28, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

FWIW

Your 6 months ban was a travesty, IMO. It's absurd that such a good editor was hit with such awful sanctions. This is an example of why I totally regret having started WP:AN, which led to the farce that is WP:AN/I. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 19:41, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

DYK nomination of David Duke 1988 presidential campaign

Hello! Your submission of David Duke 1988 presidential campaign at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 16:24, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

DYK for David Duke 1988 presidential campaign

On 6 August 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article David Duke 1988 presidential campaign, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that during neo-Nazi David Duke's presidential campaign he was convicted, yelled at Jack Kemp, won a vice-presidential primary, switched parties, and had two running mates? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/David Duke 1988 presidential campaign. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, David Duke 1988 presidential campaign), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—valereee (talk) 12:03, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jim Mooney (American politician) has been accepted

Jim Mooney (American politician), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 14:56, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Douglas Applegate

On 15 August 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Douglas Applegate, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Spencer^T•C 05:50, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Patrick Collins (Wyoming politician)

Hello, Jon698. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Patrick Collins".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:56, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Eli Bebout

On 21 August 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Eli Bebout, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Eli Bebout, a future Speaker of the Wyoming House of Representatives, was first elected as a write-in candidate? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Eli Bebout. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Eli Bebout), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Vanamonde (Talk) 12:02, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

September 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | September 2021, Volume 7, Issue 9, Numbers 184, 188, 204, 205, 207, 208 Online events: New: Women writers & their works Contest (Jul/Aug/Sep): Latin America contest Continuing: Women's leadership & empowerment | Olympic & Paralympic Games Women's rights | #1day1woman See also: Interwiki Women Collaboration Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage. Learn more about our proposed one-day online recruitment initiative in October. Help plan and coordinate future events. Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Follow Women in Red on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

WikiCup 2021 September newsletter

The fourth round of the competition has finished with over 500 points being required to qualify for the final round. It was a hotly competitive round with two contestants, The Rambling Man and Epicgenius, each scoring over 3000 points, and six contestants scoring over 1000. All but one of the finalists achieved one or more FAs during the round, the exception being Bloom6132 who demonstrated that 61 "in the news" items produces an impressive number of points. Other contestants who made it to the final are Gog the Mild, Lee Vilenski, BennyOnTheLoose, Amakuru and Hog Farm. However, all their points are now swept away and everyone starts afresh in the final round.

Round 4 saw the achievement of 18 featured articles and 157 good articles. Bilorv scored for a 25-article good topic on Black Mirror but narrowly missed out on qualifying for the final round. There was enthusiasm for FARs, with 89 being performed, and there were 63 GARs and around 100 DYKs during the round. As we start round 5, we say goodbye to the eight competitors who didn't quite make it to the final round; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia, and we hope you will join us again next year. For other contestants, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them.

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:02, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Rosemary Ketchum

Hello, Jon698. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Rosemary Ketchum".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:17, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Jon698. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Wikipedia email from user "RyuJV".
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Your draft article, Draft:1964 United States House of Representatives election in Wyoming

Hello, Jon698. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "1964 United States House of Representatives election in Wyoming".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:38, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Cynthia Lummis

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Cynthia Lummis you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ExcellentWheatFarmer -- ExcellentWheatFarmer (talk) 16:40, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

October 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | October 2021, Volume 7, Issue 10, Numbers 184, 188, 209, 210, 211 Online events: New: Women in STEM New Contest (Oct/Nov/Dec): Women in Oceania contest Continuing: Women's rights | #1day1woman Special event: 12 October: Ada Lovelace Day 24-Hour Global Edit-a-thon See also: Women in Green Good Article Edit-a-thon Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help plan and coordinate future events. Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Follow Women in Red on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 01:35, 29 September 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Your GA nomination of Cynthia Lummis

The article Cynthia Lummis you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Cynthia Lummis for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ExcellentWheatFarmer -- ExcellentWheatFarmer (talk) 21:20, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Libertarian Party of New Hampshire

Hello, Jon698. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Libertarian Party of New Hampshire, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 14:01, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Editor of the Week

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Vami IV submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I nominate Jon698 for Editor of the Week because of their outstanding contributions to our coverage of American politics, but especially US State legislatures. I have personally bore witness to their dedication to the topic, trawling through thousands of Newspaper.com clippings, and their obvious interest and openness about the topic through conversing with them on the Discord server. On-wiki, he has several Good Articles to speak to the quality of his work, such as David Duke 1988 presidential campaign. He has made it his mission in the two years he's been actively editing to vastly improve our coverage of US State legislators, and has not disappointed. For that and his level-headed and humorous conducting of himself I wish to commend him.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 14:14, 23 October 2021 (UTC)