User talk:Snickers2686/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Speedy deletion nomination of Jonathan Henick

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Jonathan Henick requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Henick. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:07, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Jonathan Henick for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jonathan Henick 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/Jonathan Henick (2nd nomination) 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.

🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:18, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

MOS:JOBTITLES

Hi, please be advised that titles like this one are lowercase per MOS:JOBTITLES. Wallnot (talk) 21:55, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@Wallnot: That hasn't been the standard practice in these articles Snickers2686 (talk) 21:57, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

The MOS is a sitewide guideline and applies regardless of what the “standard practice” in an area of articles is. See the specialized subject fallacy. The fact that it is applied inconsistently in one area does not make its application in particular instances any less worthwhile. Wallnot (talk) 21:59, 28 May 2022 (UTC) Wallnot (talk) 21:59, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Well until it's applied consistently, which it isn't in this set of articles, then to me, it doesn't apply at all. Snickers2686 (talk) 22:01, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

That’s not how sitewide guidelines work. That’s also an unfortunately bad-faith attitude for an editor of your experience to have. Should we decline to correct typos on the grounds that things are often misspelled “consistently”? Wallnot (talk) 22:04, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Depends on the language localization, I suppose Snickers2686 (talk) 22:05, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

a typo is an erroneous spelling, not a regional variation in spelling. The MOS, including MOS:JOBTITLES, applies sitewide. Why do you think you are exempt from it? Wallnot (talk) 22:07, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Like I said, it's not something that's applied sitewide, even if it is a sitewide policy, so I'll continue to edit and create the way I have, it's not like it's been problematic. Really? Because of how something is capitalized means the world is going to end? I doubt it. Snickers2686 (talk) 22:12, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I didn’t say the world would end, but there is value in consistency of style. Since Wikipedia is a volunteer project it’s a given that it isn’t perfectly copy edited. Frankly it’s also disrespectful for you to demean the value of the work I and other Wikipedia copy editors do on the site. Wallnot (talk) 22:15, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I said nothing demeaning. What I said, repeatedly, is until a "policy" is applied consistently sitewide, as you claim it is, then I'll follow it. Snickers2686 (talk) 22:18, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps you’ll find MOS:VAR helpful: “ If you believe an alternative style would be more appropriate for a particular article, discuss this at the article's talk page or – if it raises an issue of more general application or with the MoS itself – at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style.” The burden is on the party seeking the exception to the MOS rule to obtain consensus for the exception. Wallnot (talk) 22:11, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Again, it's not an "exception" if it's the general practice from the start. Snickers2686 (talk) 22:13, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

The exception that matters is the exception to the stylebook, not same made-up “general practice” that’s explicitly contrary to what the stylebook provides. Wallnot (talk) 22:16, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Made up? Have you looked at all 3800+ federal judicial articles? Maybe a fraction of them follow the JOBTITLES rule, so which is really the exception? Snickers2686 (talk) 22:20, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

FYI, I fought this fight before and it ended up being a losing battle. There are too many editors on the side of rote decapitalization of terms wherever possible. BD2412 T 23:33, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

To be frank, I'm beginning to despise Wikipedia more and more because it seems a handful of editors can enforce a rule sitewide and expect that all others must inherently follow, be it in regards to JOBTITLES or OVERSECTION. It wasn't a problem for years until just recently, yet I see no consistency amongst these editors to bring likeminded articles into the same compliance. But because I'm doing it not according to their standards on one article, then I must be wrong. Snickers2686 (talk) 00:36, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, nobody is forcing you, or even asking you, to follow the MOS, or telling you that you are wrong. Just let the gnomes do what they do, converting your valued contributions to be more in line with WP style guidelines. It's all good. Dicklyon (talk) 05:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I find the focus on "fixing" capitalization pedantic, but I don't have the energy to waste debating it. The main thing is that we get the real content in here, the biographies of the judges and their actions. BD2412 T 05:14, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm OK with my main line of little "fix" edits being called "pedantic", or "designed to teach", even if you mean to connote "annoys others by correcting small errors, caring too much about minor details, or emphasizing their own expertise especially in some narrow or boring subject matter". Dicklyon (talk) 05:30, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

All this griping over the enforcement of a guideline that is already tends far more toward capitalization than sources (the Times of London or New York), peer publications (Britannica), and industry-standard stylebooks (CMS, AP). Such a shame. I also am not sure what to make of these suggestions that I ought to edit all pages in error simultaneously. Wikipedia is a volunteer effort. You can’t require me to edit a certain way unless there is a guideline or policy stating so, and there is no guideline or policy that says I have to bring all pages in line with an MOS rule if I’m going to make even one fix. Wallnot (talk) 04:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Inconsistencies in articles are corrected one article at a time. Editing on WP comes with a social contract to follow WP:P&G. If one edits in the RW, one is expected to follow the style of the employer. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:04, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

It looks to me like "a United States district judge" is overcapped as "a United States District Judge" quite a bit more often than "a United States senator" or "a United States representative" is overcapped, probably because those of us who work on fixing such things hadn't noticed these before. So I've now got a JWB setup to work on all of these. Please check my work. It won't take too long to bring these mostly into agreement with our usual style. Fixing one at a time can go rather quickly, and arguing one at a time is pointless. Dicklyon (talk) 05:03, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

So by "usual style" you mean within Wikipedia standards, despite real-world application, such as in a court opinion. Correct? Snickers2686 (talk) 15:52, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

If only we had an essay telling us how to respond when someone says that the style used in court opinions should govern articles about lawyers. Because Wikipedia has so much more in common with an opinion than it does with Britannica. Wallnot (talk) 18:12, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I didn't realize I had to be aware of every essay, rule and regulation of Wikipedia before I ever edit anything Snickers2686 (talk) 18:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I thought you might know about SSF after I linked it for you above. So glad you’re aware of it now though. Wallnot (talk) 18:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, by "usual style" I meant the usual Wikipedia style as articulated in WP:MOS. You are not expected to be aware of every style issue, or the essays about them (such as that one offered rather snarkily by Wallnot), since there are gnomes like us who are more than willing to do the extra work of converting contributions to be more in line with WP style. Hopefully editors do learn, over time (from "pedantic" edits like mine and discussions of them), that WP style trumps various "official" styles, and things like that, but you should be not flogged for not yet being aware. Dicklyon (talk) 20:44, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Well until it's applied consistently, which it isn't in this set of articles, then to me, it doesn't apply at all.

Frankly I don’t think the snark was unjustified in response to a comment like that from an editor as experienced as Snickers, not to mention the fact that I linked SSF in my first reply in this thread. Wallnot (talk) 20:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate that. And I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed his snarky reply. Thank you. Snickers2686 (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

OK, having reread the diff that I was replying to, I apologize for the snark. It is very frustrating when users as experienced as BD waste huge amounts of times making WP:DONTLIKEIT arguments against JOBTITLES (in BD’s case, he was arguing not that the guideline should be different, but that it did not mean what it says). But it was unfair for me to lump you in with editors like him and I will try to be better about assuming good faith in circumstances like these going forward. Sorry again. Wallnot (talk) 23:40, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Columbia College vs Columbia University

Hello，while I appreciate your enthusiasm in editing the Columbia alumni-related pages, I would kindly like to inform you that most of the sources I have been using are from Columbia university's official alumni publication, which I consider to be more accurate than the JFC solely in terms of identifying their undergraduate degrees and nothing beyond that. There are literally obituaries and magazine articles showing that such individuals have graduated from the college, and further detailing their experiences at the college, and I am unable to comprehend why they do not serve as a credible source according to your standards. Graduates of Columbia College, the undergraduate liberal arts college at Columbia, can either declare that they have received their B.A. from Columbia University or Columbia College on their resumes (to distinguish from the two other undergraduate schools at Columbia: the School of General Studies and the School of Engineering). Similarly, I have also seen graduates of Harvard College or Yale College do the same thing. I am a former alumni of Columbia College and I am no longer affiliated with the University. If you still do not find this explanation satisfactory, I am happy to talk, or you can feel free to contact Columbia's alumni office. I hope this helps clarify things, thank you! CatchedY (talk) 02:47, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

@CatchedY: Then I suggest reaching out to the Federal Judicial Center and asking them to update their bios; for example, they list Cabranes' education as follows:

Education: Columbia University, A.B., 1961 Yale Law School, J.D., 1965 University of Cambridge, Queens' College, M.Litt., 1967

FJC has always had controlling precedent when it comes to federal judicial articles, so if and until they change it, I feel it still applies. From what I can tell, they only list "Columbia College" as the graduating institution for 19 federal judges dating back to 1837. Snickers2686 (talk) 02:54, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

According to Cabranes' official website on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, his education is listed as:

After attending public schools in New York City, he graduated from Columbia College (A.B., 1961), Yale Law School (J.D., 1965) and the University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England (M.Litt. in International Law, 1967).

https://coop.ca2.uscourts.gov/judges/bios/jac.html CatchedY (talk) 03:01, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

You said: “FJC has always had controlling precedent when it comes to federal judicial articles” - mind if I ask whether this is an established consensus among Wikipedia editors? Thank you! CatchedY (talk) 03:04, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

That's how it's been understood amongst the project Snickers2686 (talk) 04:40, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi! I hope this message finds you well. Since you have not responded to my questions, I have decided to raise the dispute to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard to prevent future edit wars from taking place. Thank you! CatchedY (talk) 04:38, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Editing Ann Witkowsky Draft

Hi,

I had a question regarding editing your draft for Ann Witkowsky. Anybody can edit a draft of an article, correct? I saw some things in there that could be expanded on and improved, but I wanted to get the green light to do so (if that is a thing). Also, I noticed that the draft submission was denied a while back. If I make enough edits to make it acceptable, would I be able to resubmit it or does it have to be done by the article creator (presumably you)? I wanted to confirm. Thanks in advance for your response. Losipov (talk) 05:49, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah of course, anybody can edit a draft article and then submit (or resubmit) it. You're welcome. Snickers2686 (talk) 15:26, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Tiffany M. Cartwright moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Tiffany M. Cartwright, is not suitable as written to remain published. The subject would have to secure the nomination at least to pass WP:GNG and WP:JUDGE. It also needs significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:40, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Frances Kay Behm moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Frances Kay Behm, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. DGG ( talk ) 00:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 14

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Milton Township, Ashland County, Ohio

added a link pointing to Milton Township, Ohio

Milton Township, Jackson County, Ohio

added a link pointing to Milton Township, Ohio

Milton Township, Mahoning County, Ohio

added a link pointing to Milton Township, Ohio

Milton Township, Wayne County, Ohio

added a link pointing to Milton Township, Ohio

Milton Township, Wood County, Ohio

added a link pointing to Milton Township, Ohio

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Tiffany M. Cartwright for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tiffany M. Cartwright 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/Tiffany M. Cartwright 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.

Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Snickers2686

I have made multiple attempts to get the page for Tiffany M. Cartwright reverted back from DRAFT. It makes no sense that a nominee from the president of the USA for a lifetime appointment to the federal judiciary is not a notable figure. It's even more ridiculous when the nominee has already been voted favorably out of the SJC committee. I know you are passionate about the federal judiciary like myself. I am not sure what Star Mississippi agenda is, but what is the next step that can be taken at this point? I would like to not only get her page reinstated, but more importantly stop this user or any other user form drafting any other nominee's page. Any advice?

MIAJudges (talk) 05:58, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Well Star Mississippi is an administrator and he/she has made it that only administrators can now move that page. The "new" standard they're saying exists, i.e. that no nominee is notable, is insane. Yet you have other editors that can create judicial articles by making a simple stub and that's apparently okay. There's such a double standard on this site. Snickers2686 (talk) 06:06, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

So can we just make another article for her as a Stub? If so, if you can start it I would be happy to fill it in with all the info. I've just never started a page before. I would rather see if there is a process to over turn Star Mississippi's decision because I think any reasonable person looking at our case would agree with us, but perhaps making a Stub for her would be an easier route. He seems to have some sort of agenda that I can't figure out so maybe just going around him is easier. I guess going forward we have to make sure we use a Stub only for new nominees.

On a side note, I've been going through all of the Biden judges & adding a profile picture. I finished all Trump judges as well. I'm going through Obama judges now & should be done by the weekend. I am skipping any judges who either stepped down from the bench or has announced they will.

MIAJudges (talk) 01:46, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Well he's blocked it that you can't make any type of article for her period so not much we can do now Snickers2686 (talk) 18:03, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I gotta say it seems like he has something personal against Tiffany M. Cartwright. I just find it hard to believe not only would he take the time to do this, do it to ONLY her but go to the extent that he has to make sure nobody can make another article about her. I don't know the in's & outs of Wikipedia, but he doesn't seem like the type of person that should be allowed to be an administrator with that type of power on this site. I would do the research to try & figure out how to fight him on this but she will probably be confirmed before the August recess so I guess I will leave it alone. As long as we have a solution for further nominees, which is to make their page a Stub, then I guess we will let him have his way on this one as ridiculous as it is.

MIAJudges (talk) 04:48, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, like I said we don't have a choice. I created articles on the recent batch of nominees (Garcia, Schopler, Simmons, Jenkins) and they all had a handful of sources at the start, but since I'm not autopatrolled anymore (meaning my articles don't have to be checked/verified by another editor), when they were checked by a "new page reviewer" they were all accepted. Now obviously the Cartwright article has WAY more sources than any other "new" nominee in recent memory, but it's still in draft? Yeah, that doesn't make sense to me. It's rules for us but not for them, Wikipedia is so screwy sometimes. Snickers2686 (talk) 17:41, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Gotcha. Well sounds like you have found a solution (Despite in both of our opinions there not being a problem in the first place). I appreciate all your hard work when it comes to updating the pages for the federal judiciary btw. It is a very important subject to me & I know you are one of the main contributors when it comes to that on Wikipedia so I thank you...

MIAJudges (talk) 20:19, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic List of justices of the Supreme Court of Virginia. Thank you. --Glanvil (talk) 05:26, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Re: List of justices of the Supreme Court of Virginia

There is no authority to associate Justice Mann with Seat 1 or Justice Russell with Seat 4 on the Supreme Court of Virginia because there is no source material saying which justice was elected to fill which seat, or which new justice was replacing which retired justice. If you have such source material, please cite it. As the Wikipedia article's text explains, "The General Assembly did not elect (Justice Lemons' or Justice Mims') successors until June 2022, and did not indicate which new justice replaced which retired justice. Consequently, any attempt to associate either of the two new justices to the specific seat of either retired justice would again be arbitrary." Glanvil (talk) 03:20, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah cause let's not go by common sense Snickers2686 (talk) 03:27, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

What you describe as "common sense" is only your opinion. The succession in Seats 2 and 3 when McClanahan and Powell were elected in the same year, 2011, to fill overlapping vacancies upon the death of Justice Hassell and the retirement of Justice Koontz is supported by cited source material. Do you have similar source material for the succession of seats you are attempting to make in Seats 1 and 4? If so, please cite it. Otherwise, your change is unsupported and arbitrary based on your opinion, rather than authoritative based on source material. Glanvil (talk) 03:35, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

To me the whole article verges on WP:CITEKILL so it may need a rewrite entirely as it is Snickers2686 (talk) 03:36, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

You might be interested in knowing that this is still going on, at length, on the article talk page. I even called the court, which confirmed the listed order of succession. BD2412 T 23:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

No, I didn't realize it was still going on. Wow! I mean at worst, if the wrong justice is attributed to the incorrect seat on the chart, then we just swap them out. What was wrong with all the citations you provided? For some reason it's like every dang thing in that article has to be cited, I mean everything, that just seems insane to me. I mean e-mailing the clerk of court, the executive secretary, the committees, elected officials...I didn't think it was that deep. Geesh! Snickers2686 (talk) 23:15, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I was initially going to ask you what's wrong with filling in the Mims/Lemons successor(s) in the chart, but I see that's been done. And if at worst they have to be swapped, then that's what'll happen. I assumed there were already published reliable sources that indicated who succeeded whom, but evidently not. I may be being snarky here, but where's the citation for all the previous occupants of each seat, since, to me, that's what appears what is necessary now. Happy editing and thank you for the update! Snickers2686 (talk) 04:19, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

NPP Award for 2019

		The New Page Patroller's Barnstar
		For over 100 article reviews during 2019. Thank you for patrolling new pages and helping us out with the backlog! -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:16, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Here is a barnstar to show appreciation for the NPP reviews you did back in 2019. We realize this is late, but NPP fell behind in some coordination activities. We are almost caught up. If you don't want to receive "old" barnstars, please just ignore this and reply to let us know not to send you any more. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:16, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Montecalvo

Montecalvo was nominated to Thompson's seat, which was filled upon confirmation of her successor. Howard's seat, which opened in March, is still open. – JocularJellyfish ^Talk_Contribs 16:38, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Okay, and...? I already know that. Snickers2686 (talk) 16:42, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Deletion review for Draft:Tiffany M. Cartwright

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Draft:Tiffany M. Cartwright. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Iowalaw2 (talk) 22:11, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Regarding your recent edit on the Page Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud

Hi,

  I have seen your recent edit on the page Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud. There you reversed my edits. You removed the honorific prefix and also removed some of the links. As you know this is the page of Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India and people visits this page a lot and that’s why there should be the link of most of the words mentioned in the page. You removed a link 50th which is a knowledgeable thing. The second thing is the Honorific Prefix that you removed. On the website of Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India, before the name of the Chief justice as well as all the judges there is honorific prefix “Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India”- for Chief Justice and “Hon’ble Mr. Justice”- for Judges, so I just want to tell you that we have to follow the website of Hon’ble Supreme Court. As it is a very important page so we can’t personalise this page, we can’t make any edit on this page.
   Hope you have understood.

Yours sincerely Ankit8968Soni (talk) 03:22, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

How a website styles something has no baring on Wikipedia policy. Please familiarize yourself with WP:SEAOFBLUE, WP:COMMONWORDS and MOS:OL. If you still have questions after reviewing the aforementioned links, I'll be to provide feedback Happy editing. Snickers2686 (talk) 04:21, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Anne Witkowsky

Hello, Snickers2686. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Anne Witkowsky, 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) 18:01, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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) 01:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Jaime E. Esparza predecessor

John Bash was the last presidentially-appointed U.S. Attorney for the W.D. Tex., but Ashley C. Hoff was appointed U.S. Attorney by the judges of the W.D. Tex. and thus served as the official U.S. Attorney (i.e., she was not an "acting" U.S. Attorney). I created a draft page for USA Hoff that is currently under review. Shapsam19 (talk) 19:49, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

No, I understand the difference. I've created hundreds of these pages with no issue. Being as there is no page for an acting predecessor and since his predecessor is noted here and here it only makes sense to input Bash as the predecessor. Snickers2686 (talk) 21:31, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Snickers2686!

Happy New Year!

Snickers2686,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 05:28, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 05:28, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Regarding Jagdish Singh Khehar

The above said person was designated as a 'senior advocate' under the Indian jurisdiction. Once judge of a court in India, of a certain level, after retirement are unable to practise in any court of the same or below as an advocate/senior advocate after retirement. Him being previously a judge of the highest court in India, would mean he was 'formerly' a senior advocate. DetuchVonzer (talk) 13:33, 2 January 2023 (UTC)