This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:19, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I pass these out to pretty much everyone involved in disputes at pages that also interest me, so everyone knows. You can stop getting these by using Template:Ds/aware ...... NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:19, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:23, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I pass these out to pretty much everyone involved in disputes at pages that also interest me, so everyone knows. You can stop getting these by using Template:Ds/aware ......

Also at ANI [1] you asked for tips on minimizing future reverts. My suggestion is to spend time figuring out what edit you most care about, and if its is more than one additional reference and a couple sentences, either break it down or post draft text on talk first. If you're not sure you can ask first at the WP:RSN or WP:BLPN or WP:NPOVN and similar noticeboards. But on hot pages like Donald Trump steer clear of really big changes and take 'em more slowly. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:23, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your responses to my comments in this thread (Talk:Trump_Tower_wiretapping_allegations#What_to_do?) and would like to be corrected. I definitely don't know everything and love to learn more. Maybe you have some insights that will get me closer to the facts. Here's the relevant part of the thread:

This is well explained by TheTimesAreAChanging. For even more evidence, although admittedly in the WP:OR realm, peep this article from March 2017,^[1] which states: On Monday, the House panel sent the Justice Department a letter asking for copies of any court orders related to Trump or his associates which might have been issued last year under an electronic surveillance law or a wide-ranging anti-crime statute. So the committee asked for any and all documentation of court ordered surveillance of anyone associated with Trump over the last year and they were delivered....the Carter Page FISA. That's the only one. Now on to the mystery of the 2014 investigation, we have very little information about it, but if you read the Horowitz report, page 291 for example, you see that a money laundering investigation of Manafort was opened in January 2016. Note this has nothing to do with being a foreign agent or spy so FISA is off the table, since that's for foreign influence. Ultimately, that investigation was subsumed by Mueller and ended with Manafort's tax fraud conviction. For completeness sake, John Solomon (who I know isn't going to be an RS for the article, but for reference here on the talk page) said: During the 2014 investigation, Manafort and his partner Richard Gates voluntarily identified for FBI agents tens of millions of dollars they received from Ukrainian and Russian sources and the shell companies and banks that wired the money. “Gates stated that the amounts they received would match the amounts they invoiced for services. Gates added they were always paid late, and in tranches,” FBI memos I obtained show. So again, it was about weird money stuff, not about foreign influence, Manafort wasn't even participating in US politics at the time. Regardless, we know for sure the 2014 investigation was closed at some point, because as referenced in the Horowitz report, the slate was clean in January 2016 when a new investigation started. Seems like the 2014 investigation was short lived but we don't have actual dates. Nweil (talk) 02:43, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just a point. Manafort's work internationally was usually of a "foreign influence" nature. When he was in Ukraine it was for Russia and against Ukrainian and American interests, and he continued that work while he was Trump's campaign chairman. Therefore, FISA warrants would have been justified. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:10, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow you are really just mashing ideas together randomly. Nweil (talk) 03:21, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just the facts. Weren't you aware of this? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nweil, you may find the Senate Intelligence Committee report's coverage of Manafort's "influence operations" interesting. Manafort was paid very handsomely for pushing Russia's interests in Ukraine. Look at the Table of Contents, and then start on the page with 33 at the bottom (47):

"The Committee limited its investigation of Manafort and his associates to areas related to Russia and Russian-aligned interests. The most significant of Manafort's Russian-aligned interests centered on two overlapping areas: (1) Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska and (2) politicians affiliated with the now-defunct Party of Regions (PoR) and its successor, the Opposition Bloc (OB), in Ukraine. In pursuing these relationships, Manafort conducted influence operations that supported and were a part of Russian active measures campaigns, including those involving political influence and electoral interference. These past activities resulted in relationships and levers of influence, including multi-million dollar financial disputes, which persisted throughout Manafort's time as the head of the Trump Campaign. Furthermore, Manafort sought to secretly contact both Deripaska and Ukrainian oligarchs affiliated with the OB in connection with his work on the Trump Campaign. Manafort reached out to both entities before, during, and after his time on the Trump Campaign to provide inside information and offer assistance to these Russian-aligned interests." (bold added)

So you see, my knowledge about Manafort is pretty well aligned with very RS. In fact, I have no other ideas about him. I get all my ideas from RS. It is no exaggeration to call him a VERY active "Russian asset" while leading the Trump campaign. He actively pushed for Russia and against Ukraine, and he was paid to do this. He also shared important campaign data with Deripaska, who of course shared it with Russian intelligence so they could use it to more precisely target American voters. It is because of Manafort's anti-Ukraine, pro-Russian, activities and interests that the Trump campaign got the GOP to change its party platform about support for Russia vs. Ukraine. Russia used Manafort to get their will with Trump, who willingly complied as he would, and did, benefit from the arrangement. This was a fulfillment of Trump's very public promises to Putin, a real quid pro quo, to back off on U.S. support for Ukraine, IOW to weaken and lift the sanctions that hurt Putin and his oligarch friends, especially Deripaska (Trump later succeeded in lifting the sanctions against him). In exchange, Putin would support Trump's candidacy, and he really came through. Trump repeatedly and very publicly stated before the election that he would seek to lift the sanctions when elected. The Steele dossier accurately described this long before the intelligence community, Mueller Report, and Senate Intelligence Committee all documented it. The red thread behind nearly all the Trump-Russia business is about those sanctions. Trump would help Putin by lifting the sanctions in exchange for Russian interference in the elections. It was always about the sanctions, and Russia managed to surround Trump with Russia-friendly people who thought like him, because Trump too was Russia-friendly and had publicly expressed anti-American views. Trump was and is a very useful idiot, IOW a Russian asset. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:28, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You say many wrong things in the above comment but I'm not breaking it down because this is not a forum. The only relation Manafort has to the wiretap tweets is that he was mentioned as vindication for the wiretap tweets if there indeed was a FISA warrant approved for him. Other than that, yes, he's part of the overarching trump-russia saga but that is covered extensively elsewhere and this page is a small slice of that and it should remain focused. Nweil (talk) 16:42, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So what did you mean by "Wow you are really just mashing ideas together randomly." and "You say many wrong things in the above comment"?

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:36, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still wondering what I got wrong. I don't want to keep believing something that's not factual. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:48, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure we will be editing the same page at some point where these items are relevant to discuss. For now, my time is better spent on other things. Nweil (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		The Photographer's Barnstar
		Thank you so much for your addition of photos of Playland (Fresno) and Roeding Park. I was hoping to see some high quality photos for Central Valley related pages for a while, but I haven't been in the area to take them myself. I just wanted to let you know that I see you, and you are appreciated. I see you're also doing a lot of heavy lifting for other Fresno pages. Thank you! Keep up the good work! RobotGoggles (talk) 06:40, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Black Point Railroad Bridge, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peter Donahue. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just reviewed your article on Kearney Park and was shocked that there wasn't an article about it here already! Thank you for all the work you're doing to highlight the important history of the Valley. I'm from Fresno (ok ok Clovis) so it's great to see your work here. If you ever want to collaborate on an article about local history just ping me on my talk page.

Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 06:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nweil. Thank you for your work on Thomas Edwin Hughes. User:Onel5969, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Very nice job on the article. Keep up the good work.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Onel5969}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:15, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Onel5969: Thank you this one was fun! Nweil (talk) 14:30, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please point to anything in the article which is not factually supported. I do not see the basis of your "fan point of view" claim.

It is, of course, impossible to predict the future, so it is not possible to say if the Authority's estimates for the future are right or wrong. However, there are no other factually-based estimates that I know of that say the Authority is wrong. Thus, the article as far as I can determine is reasonable and factual.

We will certainly correct any problems in it. Robert92107 (talk) 03:35, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

wait who is “we” Nweil (talk) 03:50, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While I post a lot on here, there are other people who are involved with updating and managing this topic. There is no group, per se. Robert92107 (talk) 21:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Elizabeth Heng 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/Elizabeth Heng 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.

BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 18:24, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on my article nomination.Mahmood Rasooli - Mahmood Rasooli (nomination)

I have used reliable sources in my article and reliable sources have been used in all my explanations. And someone gives unacceptable reasons and wants to delete my article.

I want you to tell me what you think about my article.

(This text was written with Google Translate.) AbolfazlEbrahimi14 (talk) 10:16, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you are receiving this message, it means that you were a participant of the Donald Trump WikiProject at one point. The Trump WikiProject was deleted earlier this year, but it has been re-established as a task force under WikiProject United States Presidents. If you would like to participate in the Trump task force, please leave a comment to this message. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:46, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]