User talk:Snickers2686


UPDATE: Removed nomination for deletion. Replaced with notability tag. Question regarding subject's notability remains as his post to the World Bank may not be significant enough to warrant BLP in and of itself. As subject's ambassadorship to Panama was never voted on by the Senate, its mere occurance should not constitute significant notability. More source material is needed to establish notability, and I am unable to find any. If no secondary source material can be found to arguably meet notability threshold, then this page should be considered for a deletion nomination.

Notifying you that I have nominated page Erik Bethel for deletion. Page lacks secondary source material (announcements by White House communications is primary). I am unable to find source material outside the page to suggest that the subject meets notability requirements for BLP

Clyde J. Wadsworth edits

Hi Snickers: see the Wikipedia article entitled “Same-sex marriage in Hawaii.” It discusses the Jackson v. Abercrombie case in detail and supports my explanation that it was the Hawaii legislature that achieved marriage equality in Hawaii, not the Jackson case. Indeed, the District Court in Jackson rejected marriage equality. The Ninth Circuit on appeal only vacated the District court ruling on mootness grounds in light of the Hawaii legislature’s grant of marriage equality. Jackson did NOT bring marriage equality to Hawaii. The legislature did. Ultimately, the US Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges brought marriage equality to the nation as a whole.

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hog Farm Talk 15:16, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Marian Gaston for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Marian Gaston is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marian Gaston until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Let'srun (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

The article Charnelle Bjelkengren has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

She no longer meets notability guidelines after withdrawing herself as a federal district court nominee.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:03, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wilhelmina Wright

Might want to keep half an eye on Wilhelmina Wright for a few days. There has been an IP removing stuff there, including stuff you originally added. I reverted him again and left a message on his talk page. Safiel (talk) 04:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Thanks for the heads up! Snickers2686 (talk) 16:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • One more quick note. The user's IP originates from the Administrative Office of the United States Courts and I warned the user of conflict of interest policies. Looks like he/she is trying to cover up the fact that Wright's retirement was due to a certified disability. Safiel (talk) 23:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have also notified BD2412 in case Admin action is needed. Safiel (talk) 23:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. If you look at her FJC profile now, (as of Feb. 24) it doesn't say her senior status was due to a disability but I know when it was first published (back on the 15th) it did have the reasoning. She doesn't meet the age requirement or the service requirement, so I'd infer that it was because of some ailment, but how do we prove that now given the language on her profile has changed? Snickers2686 (talk) 17:26, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmmnn. Very Interesting. I may email these jokers and try to get an explanation of what is going on. Obviously, she was not eligible for normal retirement. Safiel (talk) 17:41, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Snickers2686&oldid=1210032580"