User talk:Novemberjazz: Difference between revisions
Tag: Reverted |
Novemberjazz (talk | contribs) get off my talk page |
||
Line 1,128: | Line 1,128: | ||
:* BTW you should join the Wikipedia Discord server. It would be great for you to be there. [[User:Jon698|Jon698]] ([[User talk:Jon698|talk]]) 05:52, 4 June 2021 (UTC) |
:* BTW you should join the Wikipedia Discord server. It would be great for you to be there. [[User:Jon698|Jon698]] ([[User talk:Jon698|talk]]) 05:52, 4 June 2021 (UTC) |
||
:::Thanks, {{U|Jon698}}. I just might. [[User:KidAd|<span style="background-color: black; color: orange">KidAd</span>]] • [[User talk:KidAd|<span style="color: gray">'''SPEAK'''</span>]] 05:54, 4 June 2021 (UTC) |
:::Thanks, {{U|Jon698}}. I just might. [[User:KidAd|<span style="background-color: black; color: orange">KidAd</span>]] • [[User talk:KidAd|<span style="color: gray">'''SPEAK'''</span>]] 05:54, 4 June 2021 (UTC) |
||
==Kidnapping== |
|||
Hi KidAd, |
|||
Legal therm for kidnapping is listed below. He was arrested in Guam, but transported to Guam by act of kidnapping from Maldives. Expulsion<ref>https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/draft_articles/9_12_2014.pdf</ref> (see article 2, 4, 12) form a territory of a country can be done only to the home country or country which accepts refugees (see article 19, 20, 21, 22) , and not to a country which in any sense would endanger him/her (see articles 24, 25 29, 30,31) |
|||
I have marked your revert as a vandalism, as you have reverted the change without any cause (the cause what legal term is kidnapping is not a cause, it is a straw ) or discussion. Just to remind you that you have marked a change as vandalism, although sources for kidnapping are given given below in the text. |
|||
As well there is a source to kidnapping from other sources literally in first sentence, and to satisfy your vanity I have added another one from Tass. Stop deleting and reverting the content. Definition of kidnapping is given below [[User:Pixius |Pixius ]] [[User talk: Pixius |talk]] 18:12, 8 June 2021 (UTC) |
|||
====Kidnapping Definition==== |
|||
A crime at common law consisting of an unlawful restraint of a person's liberty by force or show of force so as to send the victim into another country. Under modern law, this crime will usually be found where the victim is taken to another location or concealed. |
|||
In some jurisdictions, kidnapping accompanied by bodily injury, sexual assault, or a demand for ransom elevates the crime to first-degree or aggravated kidnapping. Although the terms kidnapping and abduction are, at times, used interchangeably, abduction is broader, generally not requiring the threat or use of force.<ref>https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/kidnapping#:~:text=Definition,to%20another%20location%20or%20concealed.</ref> |
|||
====18 U.S. Code § 1201 - Kidnapping==== |
|||
:(a) Whoever unlawfully seizes, confines, inveigles, decoys, kidnaps, abducts, or carries away and holds for ransom or reward or otherwise any person, except in the case of a minor by the parent thereof, when— |
|||
::(1) the person is willfully transported in interstate or foreign commerce, regardless of whether the person was alive when transported across a State boundary, or the offender travels in interstate or foreign commerce or uses the mail or any means, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce in committing or in furtherance of the commission of the offence; |
|||
::(2) any such act against the person is done within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States; |
|||
::(3) any such act against the person is done within the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States as defined in section 46501 of title 49; |
|||
::(4) the person is a foreign official, an internationally protected person, or an official guest as those terms are defined in section 1116(b) of this title; or |
|||
::(5) the person is among those officers and employees described in section 1114 of this title and any such act against the person is done while the person is engaged in, or on account of, the performance of official duties, shall be punished by imprisonment for any term of years or for life and, if the death of any person results, shall be punished by death or life imprisonment. |
|||
:(b) With respect to subsection (a)(1), above, the failure to release the victim within twenty-four hours after he shall have been unlawfully seized, confined, inveigled, decoyed, kidnapped, abducted, or carried away shall create a rebuttable presumption that such person has been transported in interstate or foreign commerce. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, the fact that the presumption under this section has not yet taken effect does not preclude a Federal investigation of a possible violation of this section before the 24-hour period has ended. |
|||
:(c) If two or more persons conspire to violate this section and one or more of such persons do any overt act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be punished by imprisonment for any term of years or for life. |
|||
:(d) Whoever attempts to violate subsection (a) shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than twenty years. |
|||
:(e) If the victim of an offense under subsection (a) is an internationally protected person outside the United States, the United States may exercise jurisdiction over the offense if (1) the victim is a representative, officer, employee, or agent of the United States, (2) an offender is a national of the United States, or (3) an offender is afterwards found in the United States. As used in this subsection, the United States includes all areas under the jurisdiction of the United States including any of the places within the provisions of sections 5 and 7 of this title and section 46501(2) of title 49. For purposes of this subsection, the term “national of the United States” has the meaning prescribed in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22)). |
|||
:(f) In the course of enforcement of subsection (a)(4) and any other sections prohibiting a conspiracy or attempt to violate subsection (a)(4), the Attorney General may request assistance from any Federal, State, or local agency, including the Army, Navy, and Air Force, any statute, rule, or regulation to the contrary notwithstanding. |
|||
:(g) Special Rule for Certain Offenses Involving Children.— |
|||
::(1) To whom applicable.—If— |
|||
:::(A) the victim of an offense under this section has not attained the age of eighteen years; and |
|||
:::(B) the offender— |
|||
::::(i) has attained such age; and |
|||
::::(ii) is not— |
|||
:::::(I) a parent; |
|||
:::::(II) a grandparent; |
|||
:::::(III) a brother; |
|||
:::::(IV) a sister; |
|||
:::::(V) an aunt; |
|||
:::::(VI) an uncle; or |
|||
:::::(VII) an individual having legal custody of the victim; |
|||
the sentence under this section for such offense shall include imprisonment for not less than 20 years. |
|||
[(2)Repealed. Pub. L. 108–21, title I, § 104(b), Apr. 30, 2003, 117 Stat. 653.] |
|||
(h)As used in this section, the term “parent” does not include a person whose parental rights with respect to the victim of an offense under this section have been terminated by a final court order. |
|||
<ref>18 U.S. Code § 1201 - Kidnapping</ref> |
|||
==Do not delete talk page items== |
|||
Please follow the guidelines in [[WP:TPG]] / [[WP:TALK]], also, do not vandalise other user talk pages[[User:Pixius |Pixius ]] [[User talk: Pixius |talk]] 18:21, 8 June 2021 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:42, 8 June 2021
Rex Maddaford
Hi. The link you've provided doesn't load - I get an access denied error message with "This request was blocked by the security rules". I've tried it from two different machines too, with the same result. Therefore, it fails WP:V. Do you have an alt. source? Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:07, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Weird. It has worked for me. I will attempt to look for another source tomorrow. Thanks for letting me know. KidAd (talk) 06:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you. Could be a UK thing, but hopefully there's another source. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:17, 14 May 2020 (U
Remember...
Plip!
...to notify article creators when you start an AfD! /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 16:50, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- Tpdwkouaa Sorry about that! KidAd (talk) 08:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Reminder
Please tag your new articles with appropriate WikiProject banners on their talk pages, e.g. {{WikiProject Biography}} and {{WikiProject United States}}. Also, Ballotpedia is not a reliable source and should not be used in a WP:BLP. SounderBruce 02:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
- SounderBruce, Is this in reference to anything specific? Also, there is currently no consensus on the reliability of Ballotpedia per WP:RSP. It can be helpful for sourcing succession information related to officeholders. I don't see any reason not to use it until a consensus is established. KidAd (talk) 03:01, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
- KidAd, it's a last-resort resource. For an article like Bill Jenkin, it would be simple to find a local newspaper or the legislature's rolls to source the date of his swearing-in. SounderBruce 03:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
- SounderBruce, I will keep that in mind. Thanks for the reminder. 👍 KidAd (talk) 03:06, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
- KidAd, it's a last-resort resource. For an article like Bill Jenkin, it would be simple to find a local newspaper or the legislature's rolls to source the date of his swearing-in. SounderBruce 03:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Carlos Maza citation error
In your recent edit to Carlos Maza, you inadvertently used the wrong citation for a quote - a book about Nazi propaganda radio published in 1997 can't possibly have a quote from Maza about YouTube. I've removed the erroneous citation; you might want to find the correct one. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
- NorthBySouthBaranof Thank you so much for the alert. I must have made an error using the automatic citation tool. Instead of pasting in the Business Insider URL, I most likely pasted in a series of words from the cited quote ("something...something...leftist propaganda"). Again, thank you for catching my mistake. KidAd (talk) 02:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Teresa Leger Fernandez forum
Extended content
|
---|
Hi KidAd, thanks for reaching out. Wanted to discuss a few things on the Teresa Leger Fernandez page. It seems like two specific claims in the US House race section are written with the intention to mislead and the allegations are being treated as fact without context. In regards to the attack ads on Plame the article is written in a way that paints Leger Fernandez as complicit when the same source clearly lays out a response to the allegation that I believe would be beneficial for broader and fuller context. Second, regarding the allegations of "dark money" again that source points out a response for the Leger Fernandez team. Again, this context is key as the way the current article is written is misleading and essentially accuses Leger Fernandez of FEC law violation, which they responded to. I feel like if these statements are being made, it is critical that broader context should be given. Happy to discuss more! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collg76 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the info, KidAd Not affiliated, just a concerned voter who thought full context might be helpful and would help for neutrality since again, a full picture would be more helpful. Good to know the full rules. I still believe that a response or at least a recognition of campaign finance laws would be beneficial since the wording now implies that these allegations are true. Thanks for the discussion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collg76 (talk • contribs) 00:05, 4 July 2020 (UTC) |
Extended content
|
---|
@KidAd:, No, I am not Collg76, although we are making the same point about facts and context. Since you have more experience editing Wikipedia, I am happy to defer to you on protocols and to work with you on good faith consensus. Correspondingly, please note, I am applying the same professional standards to this contribution that I would to any other writing for publication that carries my name. The reason I asked you to look at the multiple new citations was to reassure you that the additional information is thoroughly supported, fact-based, and independently reported, not supposition or editorializing. What caught my attention when I noticed there was a Wikipedia page on Teresa Leger Fernandez was the biased and incomplete information contained in this passage:
How would you like to proceed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TRGreen (talk • contribs) 18:15, 7 July 2020 (UTC) Take this to the article’s talk page to gain consensus for your changes among other editors. KidAd (talk) 18:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC) |
Sure, if you could explain or direct me to guidance on how to move this discussion to the article's talk page and seek consensus. TRGreen (talk) 02:45, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Read WP:CONS and WP:TALKDONTREVERT. KidAd (talk) 02:47, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
A belated welcome!
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, KidAd! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
If you don't already know, you should sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to insert your username and the date.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! ◊PRAHLADbalaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 20:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
I know that you've been here awhile, but I just couldn't find any welcomes! (Even in your archives!) Cheers, ◊PRAHLADbalaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 20:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Prahlad balaji, Thank you, and just in time for my 2.5 year anniversary! Better late than never. 😊 KidAd (🗣️🗣🗣) 20:22, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Your submission at has been accepted
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 Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs 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.
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!
Bkissin (talk) 14:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)DYK for Lauren Boebert
On 22 July 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lauren Boebert, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Lauren Boebert encourages her servers to openly carry firearms inside her restaurant in Rifle, Colorado? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lauren Boebert. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Lauren Boebert), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
ITN recognition for Frank A. Howard
On 29 July 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Frank A. Howard, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 00:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Hatnote
I removed the hatnote you added to Frank A. Howard. Per the guideline WP:NAMB, hatnotes are generally not needed unless the title is ambiguous with other pages. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 01:14, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- Gotcha. I wasn't aware of that policy. KidAd (💬💬) 01:20, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Lisa Goodman AfD
I wanted to call your attention to the fact that the AfD for Lisa Goodman might be motivated by her recent votes. I don't think it's a coincidence that one of the council members who voted against reallocating police funds and against firing the MPD public information officer is now facing a deletion. I believe that the potential for sock-puppeting, trolling, and canvassing are higher on this AfD. Do you have experience dealing with this?--Mpen320 (talk) 04:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- I wouldn't make any assumptions about political motivations for the AfD. As far as I know, the discussion has not experienced any SPA activity. But I do still believe the nomination is frivolous and flawed. KidAd (💬💬) 04:59, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- Just FYI, I've resurrected and revamped her article. gobonobo + c 15:20, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Cori Bush
I'll move the draft into the mainspace, once I work on it for a minute. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. I will work on it more tomorrow as well. KidAd (talk) 05:01, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
A cheeseburger for you!
Just wanted to thank you for creating the article about Dave A. Chokshi! — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 11:34, 6 August 2020 (UTC) |
Your submission at Articles for creation: Theresa Greenfield (August 7)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Theresa Greenfield and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Theresa Greenfield, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
- If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
Hello, KidAd!
Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Robert McClenon (talk) 05:02, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
|
Huh?
[1]. Doug Weller talk 13:32, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Doug Weller, I saw that an IP made that change and I went to revert it. I was editing on mobile and there must have been an edit conflict. KidAd (talk) 17:54, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
- Fine, I thought it must be a mistake. Doug Weller talk 12:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Your Thad Allen edit
If you are going to change the date convention used in the Thad Allen article then I would suggest that you change the markup at the beginning of the article from dmy to mdy and change ALL the dates in the article. This is a military article as well as a biography so either format is acceptable but mixing formats within an article isn't. I have reverted your edit so that you may decide which way you want to go with this. Regards. Cuprum17 (talk) 15:10, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
"Dan Ryan (politician)" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Dan Ryan (politician). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 9#Dan Ryan (politician) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 20:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Madison Cawthorn
Can you please elaborate on your objection under WP:BLP on the Talk page for Madison Cawthorn? I've created a discussion header there for this purpose. Juansmith (talk) 18:24, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
IP Message
Hi, My name is Tera Freese. I am writing you to ask that you stop "correcting" my husbands Stan Freese page. I understand that you may not be able to verify some of the information, but I assure you, we can. Please understand I am grateful for this site and the enormous amount of work which goes into the everyones bio. I do not wist to sound ungrateful, I an just trying to have all of his information listed. Thank you. Tera Freee — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:bd0:9cb0:5092:d834:f009:a419 (talk • contribs)
- Unfortunately, I have no way to verify your identity or claims. KidAd (talk) 21:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
About Charles H. Taylor's district
Hello, fellow WikiProject US State Legislatures participant! I've noticed your edits on pages related to the subject in the past, and I think you're a very valuable member of this small team we have in the project. This last edit however, I have a question about. On Charles H. Taylor's page, you made some copy edits, but in doing so, you removed the district information from the infobox about his district information. I wanted to ask if this was intentional, and if so why. Adding district information into the infobox seems to be fairly common practice with state legislators.RoundSquare (talk) 16:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
- RoundSquare, Thanks for the message. In my first edit, I removed the second office altogether. This was an accident. In restoring the second office, I did not include the district because it was listed as the "Kent and Ottawa County district." As far as I know, Michigan House and Senate districts are numbered, not named after counties as they are in Massachusetts. I assume that there is a numbered district that corresponds with these two counties, but I have not yet found it. KidAd (talk) 16:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
- You're right that Michigan districts currently are numbered, but that's only been a thing since 1965. Before then, it was based on counties in the state house. The state senate has always been numbered. So, at Taylor's time, it was county based districts. An easy mistake to make! I think this has been resolved, and I will put Taylor's district info back.RoundSquare (talk) 16:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
- RoundSquare Great! Thanks for the clarification. KidAd (talk) 17:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
- You're right that Michigan districts currently are numbered, but that's only been a thing since 1965. Before then, it was based on counties in the state house. The state senate has always been numbered. So, at Taylor's time, it was county based districts. An easy mistake to make! I think this has been resolved, and I will put Taylor's district info back.RoundSquare (talk) 16:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
EW
Hi KidAd. Thank you for your work on several American politics article. Please be careful not to edit war, even if you believe your edits are correct. - MrX 🖋 18:10, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
- MrX, Gotcha. I hear you loud and clear. KidAd (talk) 18:10, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Jessica Castleberry has been accepted
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 Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs 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.
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!
Pi (Talk to me!) 11:12, 17 August 2020 (UTC)A beer for you!
Great job on Dan Ryan - keep it up! Meatsgains(talk) 01:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC) |
Melanie A. Stansbury
Extended content
|
---|
Dear Kidad, The follow up on MrX's request, I would ask you to please stop undoing the edits that we (Desert_Diva and I) are trying to make on Melanie A. Stansbury's page. There are several updates that we need to make on the page and you take down our edits before we can really get started. The edits that I made today made a correction and rearranged the citations to better justify statements. My edits were minor and made some corrections that needed to be made and you took them down with a cryptic "not helpful" comment. Stansbury was elected to the NM State House of Representatives two years ago. Her page needs to be updated with information about the legislative work she has done since. Please let us finish making the updates, then you can edit what we have done if you have improvements to make. Thank you, BiostatSci — Preceding unsigned comment added by BiostatSci (talk • contribs) 22:57, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Kidad, I am not being paid to edit this page. I do know Ms. Stansbury, as she is a local politician. I support her for re-election, but does that disqualify me from making properly sourced updates to her page? I am very experienced at properly justifying statements in my papers. I will do the same here. I will make any disclosure necessary before continuing to edit. Once that is done, I would ask again that you not take down our edits until we are finished with them. You can then assess whether the page has been biased in any way. If you believe it has we can talk further then. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BiostatSci (talk • contribs)
Dear Kidad, I checked about whether the academic degree of a person should be capitalized. This is what I found: "Academic degrees are capitalized only when the full name of the degree is used, such as Bachelor of Arts or Master of Social Work. General references, such as bachelor’s, master’s or doctoral degree, are not capitalized." at https://wmich.edu/writing/rules/capitalization. I also have seen this rule followed in other Wikipedia articles (See, for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bachelor_of_Social_Services). Apparently, there are differing opinions on this. Whatever the Wikipedia style is fine with me. I view Vote Smart as similar to Ballotpedia, which is commonly referenced in articles about politicians. I used it because it was accurate and has more complete information about Stansbury's education. I can piece together multiple references to document the same information, if necessary. In articles about people, biographical information almost always comes from the subject of the article, either directly or indirectly. So, I chose the reference that had almost all of it in one place. There were no discrepancies among the sources. Some were just incomplete. Also, concerning the addition of a second reference to document the "born in Farmington and raised in Albuquerque" was made to completely document the statement. The previous reference only documented the "born in Farmington" part. I took the statement about Stansbury succeeding Jimmie Hall because it is going to be redundant with information in a subsequent section to be added (i.e., Elections). The edit that came just before the Jimmie Hall sentence was made because we are not sure whether she still works for the Utton Center, which was the case when the interview occurred but may not now. So, I reworded the sentence to allow for the possibility that she does not still work there. Finally, and most importantly, I added the section New Mexico House of Representatives because things are not static. She has a record in the House and it should be documented in this article. We will do that by adding sub-sections under this new section as follows: Elections 2018 2020 Tenure We will document some of the more important bills that she wrote in the legislature. Committee Assignments Respectfully, BiostatSci — Preceding unsigned comment added by BiostatSci (talk • contribs) 03:15, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
|
Some baklava for you!
Just reviewed John J. O'Connell (politician), nice job. Cheers Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 08:12, 20 August 2020 (UTC) |
Montoe District (Santa Rosa)
I reverted the article for the time being.
I don't know if you are in the area, but this is a current discussion item in the Santa Rosa Community. One school board member proposed an emergency action to remove the School's name in the belief it was tied to President James Monroe. This article is the key reference for the community about the true history of the District and the School. Constructive, limited improvement suggestions are welcome. Please see the talk page on the article. A total elimination of much of the District history and the total elimination of the Elementary School makes Wikipedia much less useful for well-documented history.
We look forward to seeing your suggestions on the article's talk page. Thanks.MikeVdP (talk) 19:51, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- MikeVdP, I have responded to your comment on the article's talk page. I will also say that the page likely does not meet WP:GNG. Per WP:GEOLAND,
Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG. Examples may include subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc. – any of which could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis, given non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources
. Seeing as Monroe District (Santa Rosa, California) is supported by trivial mentions in local publications, the page should probably be redirected to Santa Rosa, California or deleted. KidAd talk 21:53, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Mia Gregerson
Can you explain why you deleted major sections of the Mia Gregerson page while claiming "copyedits and infobox cleanup" as the reason? Your major deletions of documented and sourced details appear to be politically motivated during a campaign season. Please explain your actions. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nizer (talk • contribs) 20:12, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- Nizer, I have restored my edit, seeing as you reverted highly-necessary fixes I made to the infobox and the general structure of the article. The only text removed from the article was a sloppy "controversy" section, which violates WP:CSECTION. KidAd talk 20:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
What do you think about my edits here? Marquardtika (talk) 04:13, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- Marquardtika, looks kosher to me! . KidAd talk 04:14, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Is it safe to say Burgess is the presumptive winner? Or not enough consensus at this time? 67.2.247.196 (talk) 22:29, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello, KidAd. On what grounds did you delete edits to said page made 9/3/20? I am the representative, and can provide references for the information I included, because the entry, as it stands is partial, misleading and inaccurate.
Tangaimei (talk) 18:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- Tangaimei, Your edit here introduced unsourced WP:PROMO material. If you are editing your own page, I highly suggest that you stop immediately and read WP:COI. Follow the instructions I left on your talk page. Do not edit the page further. KidAd talk 19:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Interesting. I did not know that the person being discussed could not make an effort to correct factual errors and provide information that was less misleading. I think far less of Wikipedia now, although I do understand the formal requirements to create the appearance of fairness. The outcome does not, in my view, serve the public interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tangaimei (talk • contribs) 19:25, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- Tangaimei, Your opinion is noted. Feel free to follow instructions on your talk page to submit an edit request. KidAd talk 19:29, 4 September 2020 (UTC
Extended content
| ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Welcome!Hello, KidAd, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with Wiki Education; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment. I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.
|
September 2020
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-1932 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.
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.
Robert McClenon (talk) 00:09, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- Robert McClenon, Is this about the Theresa Greenfield draft? If so, I had no involvement in the most recent submission. KidAd talk 00:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
2020 United States Presidential Election page
You recently made an edit to the 2020 United States Presidential election page removing information from the page's lead concerning Libertarian candidate Jo Jorgensen. I would suggest you self revert, as there is a clear consensus through the talk page and its archives to include information regarding Jorgensen's candidacy within the lead.XavierGreen (talk) 20:25, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- XavierGreen, There is consensus on the article's talk page about mentioning third party candidates in the lede. Jorgensen's candidacy is mentioned in the lede. There is no such consensus that Jorgensen-related trivia belongs in the lede. You would need to form consensus for that. KidAd talk 20:32, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Greenfield
KidAd, what do you think about the Theresa Greenfield draft at this point? Is there additional editing needed either to remove unsuitable material or establish notability? Thanks, Js2112 (talk) 18:49, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- Js2112, Thanks for your message. I think the draft is in a good place at this point, and the merge of drafts has been largely successful. However, I would recommend not submitting it for further review until after the election. If she does not win, the draft will become null. If she does win, the draft will be automatically accepted. At this point, individuals who are in the position to review drafts will maintain the opinion that she is not notable until she wins. KidAd talk 19:00, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- KidAd, I agree that there seems to be a prevailing opinion that candidates cannot be notable, but I think that viewpoint is mistaken according to the official WP:NPOL guidelines. It appears that there might be at least some support for accepting the article (I assume you would be in favor), and in principle there could be value in forcing other editors to defend their opinions about political notability rather than simply accepting them. In any case, let's say in the worst case, the draft is nominated for deletion now, and there's a consensus for deletion. Can't it still be revived immediately after the election if she wins? Js2112 (talk) 19:33, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- Js2112, I'm not quite sure what you mean. Maybe I was unclear. You can submit the draft for review, but it will likely be rejected unless she wins the election in November. The draft will not be
deleted
, however, unless she loses the election in November, and there will be no point in submitting the article for review. Even if she loses, there is a possibility that she may run again, and the draft will remain in place. KidAd talk 20:40, 20 September 2020 (UTC) - I feel like I am doing you a disservice with my poor explanations. WP:DRAFT has all the information you could ever need on the process. KidAd talk 20:41, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- KidAd, yes, I understand all of that. What I'm getting at is, what is the downside of submitting the draft for review or AfD now? Yes, it may be declined again, but that's no worse than the present situation. Js2112 (talk) 21:57, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- There is no downside, but I expect it to be rejected for the fourth time. You could always contact a friendly administrator and work to fast-track the article. Or you could just wait a few weeks. KidAd talk 22:09, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- KidAd, yes, I understand all of that. What I'm getting at is, what is the downside of submitting the draft for review or AfD now? Yes, it may be declined again, but that's no worse than the present situation. Js2112 (talk) 21:57, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- Js2112, I'm not quite sure what you mean. Maybe I was unclear. You can submit the draft for review, but it will likely be rejected unless she wins the election in November. The draft will not be
- KidAd, I agree that there seems to be a prevailing opinion that candidates cannot be notable, but I think that viewpoint is mistaken according to the official WP:NPOL guidelines. It appears that there might be at least some support for accepting the article (I assume you would be in favor), and in principle there could be value in forcing other editors to defend their opinions about political notability rather than simply accepting them. In any case, let's say in the worst case, the draft is nominated for deletion now, and there's a consensus for deletion. Can't it still be revived immediately after the election if she wins? Js2112 (talk) 19:33, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Re: Edward H. Meyers
Explain to me your reasoning for the constant reverts. There has never been a "Designate" status structured that way. Snickers2686 (talk) 19:07, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- Snickers2686, You must gain consensus for your proposed content per WP:ONUS, which states
The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content
. That means stop reverting to your preferred version and discuss. KidAd talk 19:13, 22 September 2020 (UTC)- @KidAd: It hasn't been "disputed" for nearly a year since the article's creation and now because you say so, it's in "dispute"? Sorry, I don't buy it. Snickers2686 (talk) 19:15, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- Regardless of what you choose to "buy," I suggest that you adjust your attitude and explain the reasoning for your changes in a calm manner instead of continuing to violate policy. KidAd talk 19:17, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- @KidAd: Well you have yet to explain to me why it has to be structured in your manner. Snickers2686 (talk) 19:31, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- I have already explained why that is your responsibility per WP:ONUS. KidAd talk 19:33, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- @KidAd: ONUS goes to the information within an article, not the format. Snickers2686 (talk) 19:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- So you're refusing to provide any support for the strange infobox formatting? KidAd talk 19:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- @KidAd: Strange how? It was a template created by another user to be used for federal judge articles. What's strange about it? If it were completely erroneous I would think it'd be removed in whole, but it hasn't. Snickers2686 (talk) 19:55, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- So you're refusing to provide any support for the strange infobox formatting? KidAd talk 19:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- @KidAd: ONUS goes to the information within an article, not the format. Snickers2686 (talk) 19:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- I have already explained why that is your responsibility per WP:ONUS. KidAd talk 19:33, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- @KidAd: Well you have yet to explain to me why it has to be structured in your manner. Snickers2686 (talk) 19:31, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- Regardless of what you choose to "buy," I suggest that you adjust your attitude and explain the reasoning for your changes in a calm manner instead of continuing to violate policy. KidAd talk 19:17, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- @KidAd: It hasn't been "disputed" for nearly a year since the article's creation and now because you say so, it's in "dispute"? Sorry, I don't buy it. Snickers2686 (talk) 19:15, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Empty Spaces saga
Extended content
|
---|
Empty Spaces pt. 2I fail to see how these spaces bother you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexr9873 (talk • contribs) So we're not talking about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexr9873 (talk • contribs)
I am trying to talk to you but you're failing on communicate on this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexr9873 (talk • contribs)
Ok so, idk how to sign it ok, like you've pointed out, I'm new. I have not taunted you, I've attempted to reach out and you deleted the first section and you've failed to respond constructively, only with threats. Signed: ya boi Alexr9873. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexr9873 (talk • contribs)
Ok I'm sorry for not using my page, but I fail to see where I've taunted you. Bruh, it's not that deep my fellow human, I use my bout, ya boi a lot. The empty spaces make it easier to edit. Several of your pages, nay, the majority of your pages have those same spaces you seem hellbent on removing from this one page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexr9873 (talk • contribs)
Are you going to answer my question? What makes this page different then your other pages that have those same spaces!!! Sincerely, with love Alexr9873 (talk) 22:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Empty Spaces pt 3 - warnings and advice to both of youAs explained in response to your post on my talk page], I've spent about 2.5 hours looking at the dispute between yourself and another editor over the insertion of empty spaces to create alignment within Infoboxes. I suspect neither of you will like my conclusions (which might just mean it's about right!). I have posted the following on the other editor's talk page, and felt, in pursuit of fairness and clarity, that it is appropriate to leave the same information and warning for you here, too (except pinging remove from this version): OK, following my holding response above, here goes with this admin's opinion on what has gone off here, and what needs to stop:
|
Natalia Linos
Thank you KidAd for the correction to my edit about Natalia Linos. You say candidates should be labeled as politicians. For my own reference in the future, does this definition hold true across all BLPs? If a person runs for office and loses in the primary and fails to win even the party nomination, that person is labeled a “politician” forever? You would not call someone a CEO if they interviewed for the job but never got it. Here, it seems she meets the Wikipedia notability threshold having been a candidate, but labeling her a politician in the lead paragraph doesn’t seem quite right. Adding ThatMontrealIP for input. Go4thProsper (talk) 16:38, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for your message. Wikipedia's notability standard for politicians and political figures, WP:NPOL, includes
unelected candidate[s] for political office
. When an individual files official paperwork for political office, they become a politician, even if they do not win the election. I'm certainly open to additional input. KidAd talk 16:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)- The link you attached is very helpful, as is WP:POLOUTCOMES. Perhaps I missed it, but I don’t see anything about candidates filing paperwork or being politicians. It certainly doesn’t say anything about unsuccessful candidates as politicians. To the contrary, the Outcomes link specifically calls into question the notability of unsuccessful candidates, suggesting that losing candidates have their page deleted unless they otherwise qualify as notable for reasons other than the campaign. This was certainly not my intent and I wouldn’t want to cause her page to be deleted. But it does appear pretty clear that Wiki does not consider former candidates who’ve never held office to be politicians. I won’t reverse your edit or make further edits to her page, but for my future reference it does appear that just being a former candidate is not sufficient to be labeled a politician or to even have a Wiki page at all. I appreciate you helping me think this through. Go4thProsper (talk) 17:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- I have learned from experience that WP:POLOUTCOMES is not official policy, but a frame of reference for determining the outcome of page deletion discussions. I will note that, if Natalia Linos' page was nominated for deletion, it would likely be kept because she meets notability standards as an academic, not politician. KidAd talk 17:44, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- The link you attached is very helpful, as is WP:POLOUTCOMES. Perhaps I missed it, but I don’t see anything about candidates filing paperwork or being politicians. It certainly doesn’t say anything about unsuccessful candidates as politicians. To the contrary, the Outcomes link specifically calls into question the notability of unsuccessful candidates, suggesting that losing candidates have their page deleted unless they otherwise qualify as notable for reasons other than the campaign. This was certainly not my intent and I wouldn’t want to cause her page to be deleted. But it does appear pretty clear that Wiki does not consider former candidates who’ve never held office to be politicians. I won’t reverse your edit or make further edits to her page, but for my future reference it does appear that just being a former candidate is not sufficient to be labeled a politician or to even have a Wiki page at all. I appreciate you helping me think this through. Go4thProsper (talk) 17:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Victoria Spartz
Extended content
|
---|
Leave the Controversies addition alone. It's factual, and source supported under Fair Use Guidelines. Wiki is by far made up of such news, quotes, and links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.78.51.90 (talk) 21:53, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
1. IF, there is an actual problem with the way the sources are cited, then it is up to you to either correct - not delete - or to instruct me on the citation problem and not delete the content. 2. Also, it's not proper to engage your associates to continue your edit war to CYA. 3. Quoted content need not be 'paraphrased'. You don't have a clue what you're talking about. 4. It's quite apparent you're acting as some sort of agent scrubbing content from the Victoria Spartz page - which is both against Wiki policy and entirely unethical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.78.51.90 (talk) 22:54, 3 October 2020 (UTC) 1. I suggest you understand neither the Wiki or legal Fair Use Guidelines. 2. The Controversies section - which you appear to have some unstated and unfounded reason for continually removing (which is you actually starting an edit war) - is factual, sourced, and used under actual Fair Use Guidelines. 3. It's not up to you to unilaterally make the decision to continually remove such content. 4. From what I gather from your talk page there is something entirely suspicious in what you're doing on Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.78.51.90 (talk) 22:30, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
1. KidAd and an associate have continually deleted content that is factual, sourced, quoted, and used under Fair Use Guidelines. 2. All they've done is delete the content instead of attempting to rectify what their claimed problems with the Controversies section are, and in fact an edit war. 3. That appears to prove KidAd and associate are, in fact, engaged in scrubbing the Victoria Spartz page instead of helping expand it. 4. It is unethical and IIRC against Wiki policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.78.51.90 (talk) 23:13, 3 October 2020 (UTC) |
Please be more careful...
You and I probably agree that competence is required. The edit summaries you have used at Nick Luna strongly imply you think I am an incompetent contributor.
AGF, I am going to assume you were tired, or stressed, or for some reason overlooked the normal requirements of civility and collegiality.
I am not going to respond in kind, and make similar cracks about your competency. I do strongly recommend you stop editing that article, or only make edits that you explain, politely, and meaningfully, on the talk page.
How about explaining why you don't recognize that Luna is a politician? You do realize that one doesn't have to run for office to be a politician? Political aides, whose job is to assist elected politicians, who may see themselves as candidates in future, are politicians. Political parties are riddled with influential individuals, who organize fundraising events, and then try to influence the party's official policies, or informally influence individual elected politicians, are politicians. The very first sentence of the wikipedia article Politician says "A politician is a person active in party politics, or a person holding or seeking an office in government." That is right, "active in party politics" comes before holding of seeking office. Luna's position is a partisan appointment - he is not a career civil servant who neutrally serves either party. So, Nick Luna is a politician.
I am going to pose you a bunch of questions, on Talk:Nick Luna. That will be over the next day or so, because I am a busy person, and have other things going on. Geo Swan (talk) 18:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- Geo Swan, I apologize if my comments or edit summaries were overly curt of harsh. I had no intention of insinuating that you are incompetent in any way. I understand that you have been a contributor for far longer than I have. Despite this, I had several problems with your first-draft creation of Nick Luna. Looking at the first draft, multiple issues became evident. First, the lede should describe the body.
Nick Luna is an American politician from the Republican Party
is not an accurate statement (and it is also phrased strangely). No reliable source that mentions Luna refers to him as a politician. When assessing the notability of politicians/political figures using WP:NPOL, policy dictates that politicians are those "who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels. This also applies to people who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them
." There is no notability guideline for political appointees, aides, or advisors. Assuming that these individuals are politicians is a matter of opinion. You could make the argument that the White House Chief of Staff/White House Director of Communications is an intrinsically political position, but the director of Oval Office Operations appears to be akin to that of a COO. I will make no judgment on your opinion, other than that I disagree with it based on my above reasoning. Your reference to "The very first sentence of the wikipedia article Politician
" is irrelevant per WP:NOTSOURCE. If a reliable source refers to Luna as a politicain, feel free to change it back. Also found in the first draft of Nick Luna are multiple grammar errors, confusing phrasing, and some unfamiliar citation practices (to me, anyway). I have never seen a page that uses long quotes attached to each citation. You also chose to include sources that are far-from-reliable, such as "Heavy.com" and Meaww News. As of right now, I don't think the page meets WP:GNG. Respectfully, the state of the article is draft-worthy, and should not be in the mainspace until notability is established, separate from one or two news stories (per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E. Again, I am sorry if my edits or edit summaries were harsh or curt. KidAd talk 19:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
"Inauguration of Joe Biden" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Inauguration of Joe Biden. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 9#Inauguration of Joe Biden until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 16:52, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
My mistake
Apologies for the revert at Bob Dole, I thought you were deleting my addition. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 23:12, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken, No worries. The content you added was reliably-sourced. KidAd talk 23:15, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Shemia Fagan page
Can you please not do that? I'm updating the page and would like to take a little bit to bring the page up to standard. I'm unsure why you made such a hastily edit. The sections will not be redundant whenever I am finished. I will be reversing your edits and remove the redundancies. --Hoosier24 (talk) 02:50, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Hoosier24, you essentially copy-and-pasted the "early life and education" paragraph into the lede. I appreciate that you're working to expand/improve the page, but that change is not helpful, especially for such a small page. Feel free to make any changes you want, but I reserve the right to make adjustments or fixes. KidAd talk 02:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
The entire page is being redone, and when I get to that section it will not be the same as the introduction. The adjustments and fixes are not being helpful when I'm trying to improve the quality of the page by sorting them around to random sections of the article that are incomplete. --Hoosier24 (talk) 02:57, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Hoosier24 Seeing as you're a very new editor, I suggest that you copy the text of the page into your sandbox and edit it there. Users who see you remove entire sections, leave sections empty, and make other WP:BOLD formatting changes might assume that you're editing disruptively. KidAd talk 02:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
You deleted an entire introductory section, which seems quite WP:BOLD to rearrange the sections that were coherent which seems quite disruptive. I will edit in a sandbox for the time being and will upload the new sections but this is incredibly unnecessary considering introductions on most pages are redundant. --Hoosier24 (talk) 03:05, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Hoosier24, In this edit, I simply moved one of your new paragraphs down to the body section and deleted a new paragraph that was a repeat of the "early life and education section." Again, because the page is so small, having nearly-identical content that close together is not useful. Take a look at MOS:LEAD for more information. Pay special attention to
The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents
andThe lead is the first thing most people will read upon arriving at an article. It gives the basics in a nutshell and cultivates interest in reading on—though not by teasing the reader or hinting at what follows. It should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view.
The lead should not be overly long or repetitive. If you have any further questions about the page, I am happy to act as a resource. Thanks, KidAd talk 03:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
I dug up information regarding her education that was omitted (and sourced), I do agree that the lead serves as an introduction but there's so much information regarding this individual that the sections can be significantly expanded. It will be relatively concise whenever the page is completed. It's an empty canvass essentially and has a lot of potential as a page. Hoosier24 (talk) 03:25, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
New York State Legislators
Can you please not delete the governor and lieutenant governors from the pages that they were added? They are related, all of these individuals are officers or party officers within the New York State Legislator under the current governor and lieutenant governor. Thanks User:johnqarlo (talk) 16:27, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- johnqarlo, you're going to need to explain that one. What you've written does not make sense. KidAd talk 21:38, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Theresa Greenfield
Afternoon! Whew, that took a lot of research and work to prep Greenfield's personal and professional history, endorsements, platform, and polling to better match other Congressional candidates across Wikipedia, and you've wiped all that out with a few button clicks in a matter of minutes! I realize you cited WP:ONUS, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and WP:PROMO, but those descriptions don't seem to black-and-white prohibit this further information and context. The controversy around creating and editing this Wikipedia article now has national attention[1], so I just want to make sure that these are in fact black and white violations of Wikipedia's terms, before all of this information is barred from being gathered and presented on Greenfield's page. Thanks for the vigilance and citations! Charlie918 (talk) 19:11, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- Charlie918, It's very nice that you've taken time to add material to Theresa Greenfield's page. Seeing as these are some of your first edits in six years, you may be in need of a refresher. A long list of endorsements added here is the kind of WP:INDISCRIMINATE data more suited for a campaign website. Your insertion of WP:PRIMARY-sourced campaign material is a violation of WP:PROMO. Additionally, the reasoning you provide in this edit summary doesn't hold water (see WP:OTHERSTUFF). Adding a table of polling data is unnecessary. That information is covered on the general 2020 United States Senate election in Iowa page. You also included duplicate information here. Oh, and an unsourced birthdate here. KidAd talk 19:19, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ Harrison, Stephen (27 October 2020). "Why Did It Take So Long for the Democratic Senate Candidate in Iowa to Get a Wikipedia Page?". Slate. Retrieved 28 October 2020.
Notability of political candidates
A couple years ago I started writing this: User:Enos733/Political candidates. I don't think it is that great, and it doesn't address the Greenfield decision, but felt like sharing. --Enos733 (talk) 07:41, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Enos733, thank you for sharing that with me. I look forward to reading it tomorrow. I have started WP:Greenfield. Don't hesitate to contribute! Thanks again, KidAd talk 07:59, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
November 2020
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at List of Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign staff members. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Mass reversion of nearly two dozen edits, removing citation needed template, on a topic of current interest (the day of the election).Template:Z187
- Adminstrator note: I deem the above unsigned level-2 warning by William Allen Simpson to be quite unjustified, and that this reinstatement was not vandalism in any way, but normal content disagreement, now being discussed on the article talk page. For the purposes of any future warnings, please ensure you start again at level 1. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:01, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Please stop reverting Nikema Williams. There is a special election in Dec. that will have someone else fill the position for a month....Pvmoutside
- Pvmoutside Your edits do not make sense. Regardless of a special election, she cannot be the incumbent if she does not assume office until January 3, 2021. Feel free to take this issue to the article's talk page, but I suggest you stop edit-warring incorrect information. KidAd talk 21:25, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- why don't you think it makes sense? In Dec. another candidate will take the seat for a month before she takes the seat. She is not succeeding John Lewis. She will be succeeding the Dec. candidate....Pvmoutside
- Pvmoutside She is not in office now. She is not the incumbent. So the infobox should not reflect the fact that she is currently in office. KidAd talk 21:56, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- why don't you think it makes sense? In Dec. another candidate will take the seat for a month before she takes the seat. She is not succeeding John Lewis. She will be succeeding the Dec. candidate....Pvmoutside
Florida legislator term dates
Hi, thanks for making an infobox for and expanding Traci Koster. Just for future reference in case you're editing other Florida pages – legislators take office upon election (Art. III, Sec. 15(d) of the Constitution), so term dates should begin and end on the dates of election. Thanks! Starrfruit (talk) 19:09, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Formation of Joe Biden's Cabinet
Hey. I noticed you have merged the page created into Cabinet of Joe Biden. This page was meant to be Biden's version of this page: Formation of Donald Trump's Cabinet - which can be built up with much more in-depth information that would be appropriate on the main Cabinet page. I noticed only Trump seems to have one - do you think one for Biden would be good? PoliceSheep99 (talk) 03:05, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- I do not think a WP:FORK is necessary here. A better option would be to start a "selection process" section on the main page. I can't imagine that section getting too long to need its own page. KidAd talk 03:07, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- Do you think it would be good to merge Formation of Donald Trump's Cabinet into Cabinet of Donald Trump then - it would probably be good to have WP:CONSITENCY on this? PoliceSheep99 (talk) 03:11, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- That article is huge, but I do not plan on making any changes to it. Really not the issue here. WP:OTHERSTUFF. KidAd talk 04:12, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- PoliceSheep99, If you look at the edit summary of the Formation of Donald Trump's Cabinet page, you will see that it was created based on consensus. If a consensus is formed to create a version of that article for Biden, then the redirect can be removed and the page can be expanded. But I really don't see any reason for it, especially now. KidAd talk 04:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- Do you think it would be good to merge Formation of Donald Trump's Cabinet into Cabinet of Donald Trump then - it would probably be good to have WP:CONSITENCY on this? PoliceSheep99 (talk) 03:11, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
No 10
I'll see your https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-54907188 and raise you https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54938050, cheers Murgatroyd49 (talk) 19:15, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Discussion about First Lady and Second Gentleman-designate titles
Please join a discussion here regarding whether the terms "First Lady of the United States Designate" and "Second Gentleman of the United States Designate" should be in the infoboxes of Jill Biden and Doug Emhoff, spouses of the president-elect and vice president-elect, respectively. We need to come to a consensus. Thank you for your participation. cookie monster (2020) 755 21:24, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- CookieMonster755, I certainly will. KidAd talk 21:32, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Sonoma County represent
Glad to know I'm not the only Sonoma County resident working on the Biden transition/administration articles. Stay dry out there :) Missvain (talk) 23:27, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- Missvain, Hey, Sonoma pride! I'm actually up north in Idaho at the moment and usually in rainy Washington for college, but Sonoma will always be home. Hope you're staying safe and healthy. KidAd talk 23:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hey Missvain KidAd, I also live in Sonoma County aswell. KidAd I been watching you make topics for State level politicians for sometime now. Keep up the good work. I been currently working on listing past representatives for our State Senate districts dating back to 1883, and already done the State Assembly for our state listing representatives dating back to 1885, which took me 3 months to do. Dillon251992 (talk) 02:02, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- I love it!! The Sonoma County Cabal. . I started and have been diligently maintaining Dominic Foppoli, by the way! Missvain (talk) 15:27, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hey Missvain KidAd, I also live in Sonoma County aswell. KidAd I been watching you make topics for State level politicians for sometime now. Keep up the good work. I been currently working on listing past representatives for our State Senate districts dating back to 1883, and already done the State Assembly for our state listing representatives dating back to 1885, which took me 3 months to do. Dillon251992 (talk) 02:02, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Edit conflict on Reema Dodin
Hi there - I'm working on the Reema Dodin article and I got a few edit conflicts. I did put a hat on the top of the article noting it's in use. Thank you! I appreciate your contributions and understanding. Missvain (talk) 20:11, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
"Nominee-designate"
KidAd, would you care to elaborate further on why you reverted an edit on Janet Yellen here beyond not a term
?
Sdrqaz (talk) 18:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Sdrqaz, Reliable sources identify Yellen as a nominee (CBSN, CNBC, The Week, The Hill, Fortune, Washington Post, etc.) Until a reliable source identifies her as anything but a "nominee," making up the term "nominee-designate" is an example of WP:OR. KidAd talk 18:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- KidAd, I am aware that Ms. Yellen has been described in multiple sources as being Biden's nominee for Secretary of the Treasury. However, there was a conflict between editors whether that should be included in the infobox, given that Biden is technically unable to nominate members of his cabinet until he assumes office. The term "nominee-designate" was used as a compromise, as Yellen can be accurately described as such. As for the accusaion of original research, the Washington Examiner has described her here as nominee-designate.
- Sdrqaz (talk) 19:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Per WP:RSP, there is no consensus on the reliability of the Washington Examiner. In what discussion was this compromise developed? I don't see anything on the talk page about it. KidAd talk 19:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, the compromise was created by me, as at the time there didn't seem to be any appetite for dialogue between the warring users. I'll leave the matter for now, awaiting a consensus on the issue. Sdrqaz (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Per WP:RSP, there is no consensus on the reliability of the Washington Examiner. In what discussion was this compromise developed? I don't see anything on the talk page about it. KidAd talk 19:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Sdrqaz (talk) 19:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- The practice on Wikipedia for years, has been to use Nominee in these situations. If there's a dispute about that practice? then an Rfc on the matter (in a designated place) would be the best route. GoodDay (talk) 20:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello! I am curious about why you haven't withdrawn this AfD nom. He meets WP:NARTIST very clearly with the three museum collections, meaning it will be kept; there is no other outcome possible. Possibly (talk) 19:35, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Seeing as the first two votes in the AfD are Redirect and Agree with Redirect, I do not plan on withdrawing anything. Even if the majority of votes are Keep, the discussion is not unanimous. KidAd talk 19:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- I forgot that it cannot be withdrawn as there are opposing !votes. Anyway, read WP:NARTIST for next time perhaps.Possibly (talk) 20:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Political appointments by Joe Biden moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Political appointments by Joe Biden, does not have enough sources and citations 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. (t · c) buidhe 22:02, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Cabinet whatevers
HELLO. If you're going to change it to Nominee? Will you PLEASE do it for ALL of the cabinet nominees. GoodDay (talk) 01:05, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- GoodDay, I'll change it when I see it, but I'm not actively patrolling all of these pages. KidAd talk 01:06, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- You're bleeping up the consistency of these articles, though. Go to RFC concerning this topic & present your position there. GoodDay (talk) 01:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- GoodDay, The fact that a few uninformed users have decided to create "nominee-designate" is not my bleeping problem. I'll change it when I see it. KidAd talk 01:13, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- You're bleeping up the consistency of these articles, though. Go to RFC concerning this topic & present your position there. GoodDay (talk) 01:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Serving as
I cited the talk page discussion because two experienced editors agreed with me that "serving as" is not appropriate, for both style reasons and POV reasons. That looks like consensus to me. The grammatical problem with "serving as" is that there's no verb in the sentence if you just use "serving" as a gerund. You need to use serve as a verb (is serving, has served) for there to be a complete sentence. I'm not sure why US politics articles use this phrase so much … AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Lt. Gov. of KS
La Turner stepped down and Rogers was sworn in as KS Treasurer today. The original citation was reverted. Please self revert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Activist (talk • contribs)
- Activist An official government press release states
Lieutenant Governor Rogers will be sworn in as Treasurer on January 2nd, 2021
. This is confirmed by KWCH, KRSL, and WIBW. KidAd talk 20:27, 10 December 2020 (UTC)- I happened on a story that Rogers would be appointed to take the seat, and when I clicked on it, it said that it was just updated and Kelly was swearing Rogers in early this afternoon CST. It was an update of the "designee" story. So I started to do the edits. You changed my first edit. Then I went back on to see the updated original story and couldn't find it. I think they restored the original version of the story, but I'm not 100% on that. Then I called Watkins' office in Topeka. The message on their machine said that their hours are 9 to 5, and to call back during business hours. It was during business hours of course. So then I called Watkins office in D.C. I got a message that says their office hours are 9-6 EST, and call back then. Of course I was calling back "then." Then I called the governor's office and heard many messages about constitutent services (i.e. COVID-19 assistance, etc.) and finally got a young man who said that LaTurner had gone to D.C. I asked if Watkins had stepped down? He said he didn't know. I had presumed that Watkins had left office early so that LaTurner would have seniority over the incoming freshman class. But the Kansas Republicans gave him a terrible time and tried to publicly prosecute him for voter fraud because he may have voted in a city council race in the wrong district (he registered to vote from his UPS office address, but he lives in some sort of a group setting, (Actually, I'm pretty sure they wanted to get rid of him because of a major negative story they expected to break barely before the primary election, so they'd wind up with an unelectable general election candidate, if memory serves.) So he probably wouldn't be anxious to get La Turner that seniority and I think the Republican party central committee or district caucus would have to appoint him to the empty seat. I've got a bunch of work to do before a teleconference tonight, just had to run to send a letter that I want to get out today, and I need to call back a friend in another state who's been calling me while all this has been going and I probably shouldn't be doing anything on Wikipedia except for reading it for reference for the next week or so, if I can get back to it then. I'm leaving the page to you and whomever. Activist (talk) 22:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC) P.S. Lewis Carroll had it right: I'm late, I'm late, etc. Down damn rabbit hole. Activist (talk) 22:18, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- Activist, I appreciate your dedication to research, but we still need a reliable source before the information in the article is updated. KidAd talk 23:23, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- I have no problem with that. The problem was that the media misreported the situation. I don't think Watkins has stepped down, a guy with many serious problems who couldn't care a whit about his constituents, whose dad bought him his seat in congress. I've actually appreciated many of your edits that I've seen which unraveled complex problems in existing text in other articles. Activist (talk) 14:54, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
- I noticed yesterday that someone has removed the photo of Rogers from the Wikimedia file though all it would have needed was to be retitled, I assume, from Lt. Gov to Treasurer. Since you'll be working on it, I'll leave the modification and restoration up to you. Thanks. Activist (talk) 16:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
- I have no problem with that. The problem was that the media misreported the situation. I don't think Watkins has stepped down, a guy with many serious problems who couldn't care a whit about his constituents, whose dad bought him his seat in congress. I've actually appreciated many of your edits that I've seen which unraveled complex problems in existing text in other articles. Activist (talk) 14:54, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
- Activist, I appreciate your dedication to research, but we still need a reliable source before the information in the article is updated. KidAd talk 23:23, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- I happened on a story that Rogers would be appointed to take the seat, and when I clicked on it, it said that it was just updated and Kelly was swearing Rogers in early this afternoon CST. It was an update of the "designee" story. So I started to do the edits. You changed my first edit. Then I went back on to see the updated original story and couldn't find it. I think they restored the original version of the story, but I'm not 100% on that. Then I called Watkins' office in Topeka. The message on their machine said that their hours are 9 to 5, and to call back during business hours. It was during business hours of course. So then I called Watkins office in D.C. I got a message that says their office hours are 9-6 EST, and call back then. Of course I was calling back "then." Then I called the governor's office and heard many messages about constitutent services (i.e. COVID-19 assistance, etc.) and finally got a young man who said that LaTurner had gone to D.C. I asked if Watkins had stepped down? He said he didn't know. I had presumed that Watkins had left office early so that LaTurner would have seniority over the incoming freshman class. But the Kansas Republicans gave him a terrible time and tried to publicly prosecute him for voter fraud because he may have voted in a city council race in the wrong district (he registered to vote from his UPS office address, but he lives in some sort of a group setting, (Actually, I'm pretty sure they wanted to get rid of him because of a major negative story they expected to break barely before the primary election, so they'd wind up with an unelectable general election candidate, if memory serves.) So he probably wouldn't be anxious to get La Turner that seniority and I think the Republican party central committee or district caucus would have to appoint him to the empty seat. I've got a bunch of work to do before a teleconference tonight, just had to run to send a letter that I want to get out today, and I need to call back a friend in another state who's been calling me while all this has been going and I probably shouldn't be doing anything on Wikipedia except for reading it for reference for the next week or so, if I can get back to it then. I'm leaving the page to you and whomever. Activist (talk) 22:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC) P.S. Lewis Carroll had it right: I'm late, I'm late, etc. Down damn rabbit hole. Activist (talk) 22:18, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Lawyer and jurist
Hi,
Under the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, Cannon 4A5: "A judge should not practice law and should not serve as a family member’s lawyer in any forum. A judge may, however, act pro se and may, without compensation, give legal advice to and draft or review documents for a member of the judge’s family." Source: https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges#e
That's why I say a sitting judge can't be a practicing lawyer at the same time. Snickers2686 (talk) 23:46, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- Per MOS:LEDE,
The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies
. Seeing as the subject is notable for being a lawyer, they should be identified as such. KidAd talk 23:52, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
David Toland
You left this comment: "(→Kansas Secretary of Commerce: please learn to use automatic citations correctly)" To whom had you addressed that comment? 19:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Activist (talk • contribs)
- Activist, It looks like it was this IP. In the future, please sign comments you leave on my talk page so I know who I'm speaking with. KidAd talk 19:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry about that. It looks like that IP editor may have not ever edited before, as least not from that location. There's only two edits that have been made from that location from anyone who hasn't signed in. I expect it's probably someone who never bothered to get a User name. Activist (talk) 19:40, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
I am updating this page with recent content with citations and I am not sure why you are continuously reverting it back but please stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalhead83 (talk • contribs)
- Metalhead83, Per WP:ONUS,
not all verifiable information needs to be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content
. That means you must self-revert and gain consensus on the article's talk page instead of edit-warring further. KidAd talk 22:50, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough, but what business do you have reverting cited information? You have given no reason as to why you undoing these changes. Nothing changed on the page does anything more than update it with current information as the page is of a sitting elected official. I fail to see what reason you have to start an edit war over this page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalhead83 (talk • contribs)
- Metalhead83, your edit here is problematic for several reasons. First, people who play recreational American football are not called "footballers" in the United States. All of the information about his music taste amounts to WP:TRIVIA and reads like WP:PROMO content. This kind of information, while cited, is not relevant to biography of a politician. Again, self-revert your changes and feel free to start a discussion on the article's talk page. KidAd talk 23:01, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
This is solely based on your interpretation of "trivia," and a misuse of the word "Footballer." And while you are claiming these are the issues you have, you've altered more than the "personal life," section of the page. I'm failing to to see how this is collaborative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalhead83 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- Metalhead83, You have still failed to self-revert. Again, per WP:ONUS,
The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.
That means you. I have removed the content about his music taste. If you want to include it, start a discussion on the article's talk page instead of edit-warring. KidAd talk 01:09, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
You have already removed it. I don't know what else I am supposed to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalhead83 (talk • contribs) 04:38, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, KidAd
Thank you for creating Gil Gatch.
User:Celestina007, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:
Good Job!
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Celestina007}}
. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~
.
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Celestina007 (talk) 21:53, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, KidAd
Thank you for creating Jim Gartner.
User:Celestina007, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:
Good Job!
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Celestina007}}
. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~
.
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Celestina007 (talk) 22:07, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Fiona Ma
Why is the Legislative History section being removed? It's been there for years. Someone else posted it but it is relevant. This is the second time it has been deleted without full explanation. If you think there is repetitive material, you can delete the repetition, but not the whole thing. Please don't keep deleting it unilaterally because it take a lot of time to add it back in. Salmasuta (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2020 (UTC)˜˜˜˜ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salmasuta (talk • contribs)
I note your comment that references should at least be formatted correctly. Just see pages [5] and [6] about that. He has absolutely refused to do any formatting and that is not restricted to references. It can take me up to 2 hours a day to clean up his edits, even after he was banned for a week.Fleet Lists (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Fleet Lists, Very frustrating. That is why I have suggested that the page be WP:SALTED. Hopefully a benevolent administrator will take me up on that. KidAd talk 00:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Nomination of Marni von Wilpert for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marni von Wilpert 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.
Mccapra (talk) 07:55, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Mary Cavanagh and Neutrality
Hello @KidAd. I noticed the edit you made to my article about Mary Cavanagh. I don't really disagree with the assertion that the Controversy section lacks neutrality. I often make articles about obscure, historical politicians which don't really have any notable controversy surrounding them, so writing about controversies on Wikipedia isn't my strong suit. However, for this politician, I felt it was important to include information on the controversies, as it was covered in multiple news sources. My main question is, in what ways do you feel the section specifically lacks neutrality, and what are some ways to fix it? I noticed upon review that it does take a clear side on the issue of who won the primary election. Would saying something like "according to official state sources" when referring to who won the primary election be a good way to increase the neutrality of the section? I'd like some advice on this matter if you'd be willing to share it. RoundSquare (talk) 02:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- RoundSquare, thank you for your message. My choice to include a controversy/neutrality template on the page is based on WP:CSECTION, which states
Sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally also discouraged
. I was not attempting to make a judgement on the article as a whole, only that I think the material within the dedicated "controversy" section should be integrated in the "career" section to create more balance. Thanks, KidAd talk 19:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)- KidAd, thank you, I did not know about this guideline. I have gotten rid of the Controversy section and added its contents with the career section. Do you think it would be appropriate to template from the page now? – RoundSquare (talk) 20:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Melissa Murray (academic)
Thank you for your edits to Melissa Murray (academic), I hate when COIs get involved. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 00:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- HickoryOughtShirt?4, as do I. And thank you for creating the page. KidAd talk 00:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Deletion review
Why would one take this to Deletion Review? There is no interest in reviewing the deletion. The deletion was proper. The article did not meet GNG at the time.
Time has passed. Many articles have been written. The article now clearly meets GNG. You don't even have to do a google search. Simply glance at the article. All the RS refs devoted in their entirety to the subject.
If someone believes that the new article, reflecting the new GNG coverage (many times that of the old article in number), does not - though they would be you would agree I expect - meet GNG, the proper course is not a belabored deletion review discussion. The deletion was perfect. It would be an AfD discussion. If you like, revert yourself, and nominate it for AfD. That way you do not - as you are doing now - deprive the readers of the project of the ability to see the currently of moment article about a candidate currently running for office.
Readers should not suffer because some wrongheaded editor created the prior form of the article at a time that it does not meet GNG. And you I would suggest would be helping readers by not deleting it if there is an interim discussion. Which would not be about the prior deletion. But about this completely different (in GNG ref support) article. --2603:7000:2143:8500:95F7:477A:7FA6:7EB5 (talk) 03:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- Per WP:DRVPURPOSE, you must use WP:DRV to re-create a page that was deleted after an AfD, as it meets the criterion that states
Deletion review may be used...if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page
. KidAd talk 03:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- I hear you. Something is inconsistent. First - here it is not as though new information "has come to light." It is that there are new, not existing then, GNG-supporting articles, during the passage of time. Second, something is quite wrong, because this route the page cannot be viewed during whatever the review time is. If it were AfD, it could. This is the case even though the AfD page could be on its face bunk - without any RS refs. While this page - to you I would hope - is otherwise. My upset is not a review. It is the fact that the page would be down during it. That is against the idea behind leaving up pages in Afd discussion. Which this would more closely approximate. This is not the case of some BS page being deleted, a comma changed, and an effort made to recreate it. Does that make sense? Is there any review process then that you can suggest that leaves it up? That would serve the interest of the Project, be consistent with how we approach pages in Afd, take note of the circumstances, and give access to the hundreds of interested readers who otherwise would not see it. 2603:7000:2143:8500:95F7:477A:7FA6:7EB5 (talk) 04:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Yogananda Pittman notability
Hi KidAd, just wondering if Yogananda Pittman is notable. She seems to be WP:BLP1E, as she is just notable for being the chief who is replacing Steven Sund, who resigned. I am considering taking this article to AfD, but wanted to discuss with you first. Natg 19 (talk) 20:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- Natg 19, I'd say that the first woman and African-American to serve as Chief of the United States Capitol Police is notable, but feel free to start an AfD. Expect a keep vote from me. KidAd talk 23:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- I understand those points, but I am just wondering if Chief of the US Capitol Police is an inherently notable position. I will think about this some more. Natg 19 (talk) 01:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Adriane Johnson
AHHH, you beat me! We edit conflicted. Good job though! HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 03:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- HickoryOughtShirt?4, thank you! You can grab the next one. KidAd talk 03:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- It was actually so similar to what I wrote myself I was confused for a second, I thought my edit went through . HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 03:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- HickoryOughtShirt?4, We should collaborate more! Maybe at West Virginia House of Delegates? KidAd talk 05:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- Woah, talk about splitting the red sea. For sure! I can take Lisa Zukoff to Amanda Estep-Burton and you can take Andrew Robinson to Sammi Brown. I believe that splits it evenly (unless you've already started!) HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 05:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- Sounds great! Starting tomorrow... KidAd talk 06:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- Woah, talk about splitting the red sea. For sure! I can take Lisa Zukoff to Amanda Estep-Burton and you can take Andrew Robinson to Sammi Brown. I believe that splits it evenly (unless you've already started!) HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 05:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- HickoryOughtShirt?4, We should collaborate more! Maybe at West Virginia House of Delegates? KidAd talk 05:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- It was actually so similar to what I wrote myself I was confused for a second, I thought my edit went through . HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 03:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
"Incitement of insurrection" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Incitement of insurrection. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 15#Incitement of insurrection until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. ― Tartan357 Talk 04:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
January 2021
Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as Tae Johnson. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 15:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Reference on Yogananda Pittman page
Hi, I have put a question on talk:Yogananda Pittman about one of the references. Tango Mike Bravo (talk) 10:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
Hey you're famous! Woohoo!
Drmies (talk) 02:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
- This is cool! --JBL (talk) 01:03, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- JayBeeEll, thanks! KidAd talk 01:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Speedy deletion tagging
Hello, KidAd,
Just a reminder that whenever you tag a page for deletion (CSD, AFD/TFD/CFD, PROD), you should place a notice on the talk page of the page creator. If you use [[WP:TWINKLE|Twinkle], this is done automatically for you once you set up your Preferences. It makes it very easy. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 06:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- Liz, Thank you. I will remember that for next time. KidAd talk 06:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Double spaces
Please do not make edits whose only purpose is to remove double spaces. Per MOS:DOUBLESPACE, double spaces after full-stops render exactly the same as single spaces, so removing them does not change the reader experience. Meanwhile, many editors prefer them because they make scanning text slightly easier. Thanks, JBL (talk) 01:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- I've never been told that removing double spaces is harmful in any way. KidAd talk 01:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Hi KidAd, "harmful" is too strong. The reason for my request that you not do it is that it is not beneficial (the product that readers see is exactly the same either way); I'm sure if I dug around I could find some essays (or maybe even a guideline, who knows) that express the general view that making edits with no benefit should generally be avoided. (For whatever reason, I personally have a preference for two spaces after a full-stop, but I would never go around adding an extra space after the period -- I think it would annoy other people, both those who have the opposite preference and those who don't care either way but would rather not have pointless spacing edits filling up their watchlist.) Please take this for what it is: just a polite request about something of very low importance. All the best, JBL (talk) 21:30, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Lauren McLean Undue Weight
Hello,
I noticed that you recently cleaned up some edits I made to the Lauren McLean page — thank you!
I also saw that, per WP:UNDUE, you removed the paragraph I included on the failed attempt to call for a recall election; I believe I understand why, and that was the part I was most unsure about including. However, I have a question: would it be acceptable/advisable to include one or two sentences on the attempt? (Previously, it was the largest paragraph in the whole article, which I recognize was definitely problematic.) Or, since the attempt never really went anywhere, is it not worth including at all?
Thank you for your help. -Historical-idealist (talk) 04:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Why does it need to be changed?
I've already explained why the formatting is different so why does it need to be changed? Snickers2686 (talk) 04:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- Snickers2686, you actually haven't explained why the formatting needs to be different because it doesn't. KidAd talk 04:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- Quite a few ambassador articles use this format if you actually pay attention. Snickers2686 (talk) 04:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- Not a convincing explanation. KidAd talk 05:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- Quite a few ambassador articles use this format if you actually pay attention. Snickers2686 (talk) 04:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Captions
Could you please explain why you are removing photo captions en masse? MOS:CAPTION, which states In a biography article no caption is necessary for a portrait of the subject pictured alone, but one might be used to give the year, the subject's age, or other circumstances of the portrait along with the name of the subject
(emphasis added) does not support removing captions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
In a biography article no caption is necessary for a portrait of the subject pictured alone, but one might be used
...Pretty sure you just answered your own question. Captions, especiallyname, year
, are useless clutter. KidAd talk 00:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)- It's not necessary to include, but one may be included. The policy essentially says: you can include one or not. So there is no policy-based argument against including them. I happen to think they're helpful, and I have just as much policy on my side as you do. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- AleatoryPonderings, exactly. I don't get the edit summary
unnecessary 2021
KidAd keeps leaving. We all know what the current year is... that isn't even a policy-based argument, it's only a statement of KidAd's personal preference. KidAd tends to get quite heated whenever someone disagrees with them, including on this issue, such as baselessly accusing me of wikilawyering for daring to question their wisdom about what the reader already knows and wants to see in articles. This has got to stop. ― Tartan357 Talk 18:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC) (talk page stalker)- Case in point. Now I'm a "talk page stalker" for leaving my first-ever comment on KidAd's talk page. ― Tartan357 Talk 18:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- Tartan357, We have already established that the use of captions is a matter of personal preference. As no policy prevents me from doing so, I fully plan on removing unnecessary captions when I see them. I am surprised that my edit summaries, which are written to parallel useless captions (Biden in 2013 = unnecessary in 2021; official portrait, 2017 = unnecessary, 2021), have struck such a nerve. Unless you have anything new or substantive to add to this "discussion", please move along from my talk page. KidAd talk 19:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- KidAd, I hadn't even considered that you were using the edit summaries as a means of trolling. I simply didn't understand what you meant. I guess my WP:AGF mind just doesn't work that way. And if you want to continue removing these captions, you need to be willing to discuss it. You don't seem to think it's a "trivial objection", since you keep fighting so hard to remove them from articles, even violating DS and edit-warring to do so. I would really like to have a civil discussion with you about it, so please stop casting aspersions when I push back. Again, there's no sarcasm or anything nefarious there, I really just want to have a nice consensus-building discussion, which are so central to this collaborative project. ― Tartan357 Talk 19:11, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- As AleatoryPonderings correctly points out, the guideline on captions actually allows for a case-by-case determination of whether these captions are appropriate. It actually gives "Cosby in 2010" as an example of a useful caption in a biographical article, so to say that format is inherently unnecessary is a direct contradiction of that guideline. ― Tartan357 Talk 19:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- I am perfectly happy to engage in a
nice consensus-building discussion
. To overcome an impasse, it may be helpful to take this discussion to WP:MOS or on another noticeboard. KidAd talk 19:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)- I would be happy to do that with you :) ― Tartan357 Talk 19:42, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- I am perfectly happy to engage in a
- Tartan357, We have already established that the use of captions is a matter of personal preference. As no policy prevents me from doing so, I fully plan on removing unnecessary captions when I see them. I am surprised that my edit summaries, which are written to parallel useless captions (Biden in 2013 = unnecessary in 2021; official portrait, 2017 = unnecessary, 2021), have struck such a nerve. Unless you have anything new or substantive to add to this "discussion", please move along from my talk page. KidAd talk 19:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- Case in point. Now I'm a "talk page stalker" for leaving my first-ever comment on KidAd's talk page. ― Tartan357 Talk 18:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- AleatoryPonderings, exactly. I don't get the edit summary
- It's not necessary to include, but one may be included. The policy essentially says: you can include one or not. So there is no policy-based argument against including them. I happen to think they're helpful, and I have just as much policy on my side as you do. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Starting a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Captions
For clarification, what is your full position on captions of the form Name in year
? Is it that they are always unnecessary, or that they are overused in unnecessary situations, such as on relatively recent photos of living people? ― Tartan357 Talk 01:39, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Tartan357, my position is that
Name, year
andName in year
captions are highly unnecessary clutter, especially on recent photos. KidAd talk 01:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)- KidAd, so, you think WP:CAPLENGTH should be rewritten (as opposed to simply disputing how it's being interpreted)? ― Tartan357 Talk 01:44, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- I think that WP:CAPLENGTH is far too open-ended. The
No caption
andShort caption
sections directly contradict each other. There should be a clearer policy that establishesIf nothing more than the page name needs to be said about the image
and therefor if thecaption should be omitted as being redundant with the title of the infobox
. KidAd talk 01:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)- KidAd, okay, thanks. I'll put together an RfC with some proposals for the new text of WP:CAPLENGTH, which you'll be able to add your proposal to. ― Tartan357 Talk 02:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- I agree that the use of the phrase "can mention" in WP:CAPLENGTH leaves too much room for interpretation. ― Tartan357 Talk 02:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- I think that WP:CAPLENGTH is far too open-ended. The
- KidAd, so, you think WP:CAPLENGTH should be rewritten (as opposed to simply disputing how it's being interpreted)? ― Tartan357 Talk 01:44, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
David Russell movie
I noticed you removed the working title as "nonsense," which I completely agree with. The anonymous user added it back and I removed it. He added it again and I removed it again. He's now added it a fourth time and isn't discussing it on the talk page. I'm reaching out to you, so hopefully you can help keep this under control. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 20:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- There's another issue now. Possibly with the same editor. Should we request page protection in your opinion? Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 21:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Withdrawn AE case
DS violation at Hillary Clinton
Hello KidAd. Your revert at Hillary Clinton is in violation of the second active arbitration remedy posted on the talk page:
24-hr BRD cycle: If a change you make to this article is reverted, you may not reinstate that change unless you discuss the issue on the talk page and wait 24 hours (from the time of the original edit). Partial reverts/reinstatements that reasonably address objections of other editors are preferable to wholesale reverts.
You were the one who made the edit to reorder the infobox that I reverted. Reinstating your edit is only acceptable if you have waited 24 hours AND discussed the issue on the talk page. As far as I can tell, you have not discussed the issue on the talk page. Kindly self-revert and we can then take this to the talk page. ― Tartan357 Talk 02:25, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- Tartan357, I have self-reverted
, but do not plan on engaging with you. For issues like this, where there is no clear policy to support changes either way, a discussion will only provide unnecessary frustration. I will re-implement the edit after 24 hours. KidAd talk 03:00, 20 February 2021 (UTC)- KidAd, that seems pretty anti-collegial and contrary to the discussion-based nature of Wikipedia. Why force in a change you are unwilling to discuss, especially one which you believe is not supported by policy? On a fundamental level, you are required by WP:DR to engage in discussion with other editors to resolve disputes. We can use any of the options provided at WP:DR, the first of which is simple discussion on the article talk page. ― Tartan357 Talk 03:06, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- KidAd, I will also add that as I have stated above, it is a violation of the active arbitration remedy to re-implement your edit without first discussing the issue on the article talk page, regardless of whether 24 hours have passed. If you re-implement the edit after 24 hours, you will have violated this remedy a second time. ― Tartan357 Talk 03:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- My comment is available for viewing on the talk page. KidAd talk 03:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- KidAd, why are you acting this way? I obviously realize that 2020 came after 2013. Your comment is needlessly hostile. Please, be nice. ― Tartan357 Talk 03:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND. I don't understand why you keep replying sarcastically whenever I interact with you. I've made every effort to be collegial. To be honest, this makes me a bit sad. Wikipedia is about working together to produce the best articles possible. It's supposed to be fun and collaborative. ― Tartan357 Talk 03:21, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is KidAd. Thank you. ― Tartan357 Talk 05:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions alert
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 discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes. 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.
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.
Template:Z33 El_C 09:25, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
The edit warrior 89.140.234.217
Hi, just letting you know that I reported 89.140.234.217 to the admins for edit warring, vandalism. :) EGL1234 06:43, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- EGL1234, Appreciate this! KidAd • SPEAK 06:45, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Filmography tables
Thank you for adding filmography tables to a couple of articles I created. I need to figure out how to do this without messing it up. -- HistoricalAccountings (talk) 08:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- HistoricalAccountings, any time. Thank you for creating and/or significantly contributing to the pages of lesser-known actors associated with Twin Peaks. KidAd • SPEAK 08:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
A cup of tea for you!
Thanks again. HistoricalAccountings (talk) 08:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC) |
Independence, Ohio notable people
Hi, I saw you added a number of people to the Independence, Ohio "notable people" section, but with no references. I was able to re-add a number of them with references, but was unable to find any WP:RS for Frank Pokorny, Brian Rogers or William Tricker. If you have reliable sources, feel free to re-add them. (Their Wikipedia articles are not themselves reliable sources.) TJRC (talk) 02:56, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
- TJRC, Thanks for letting me know. KidAd • SPEAK 02:58, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
James Kinsella journalist/enterpreneur
Hi, Kidad. I saw your comment about deleting the page, but I don't understand it.
I didn't create the page, but I have added to it, including making some additional changes.
The guy seems to me to be interesting and worthy of a wikipedia entry -- he was the founding president of MSNBC and launched Europe's largest fiber optic network.
I didn't create his entry, but I did add to it. There are a lot of citations, including from national and local pubs.
Could you help me out with some ideas about specifically what you think should be improved?
Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandon Lapin (talk • contribs) 20:50, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
- Brandon Lapin, Feel free to voice your opinions in the AfD. Even if you did not create the page, editing it as a part of your work may be a violation of WP:COI. I suggest you familiarize yourself with that policy before you continue editing the page. KidAd • SPEAK 21:49, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
A cup of coffee for you!
Thanks for all around good wiki editing, including creating new content, improving existing articles, participating in article review, and using wiki volunteer community services in a friendly collaborative way. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:33, 9 March 2021 (UTC) |
- Bluerasberry, thank you very much! KidAd • SPEAK 18:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Audrey Strauss infobox
Hello. I see that you reverted my edit to the Audrey Strauss infobox on the grounds that you'd never seen it before, and that it was "clunky." Truth be told, the process of her appointment was itself clunky, and so rare that it's no surprise you'd never seen it before in a Wikipedia infobox. I added the appointed by field to clarify that Strauss was not appointed by President Trump, which otherwise would be the implication, as most U.S. attorneys are appointed by the first president they serve under. Would you mind if I added that back to the article? Plainsong (talk) 23:49, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- Plainsong, thanks for reaching out. If you notice, the infoboxes of prior officeholders (Geoffrey Berman, Joon Kim, Preet Bharara, etc.) only include the president field. I have not come across any that include a nominator/appointer field. That is what I was referring to when I said I had never seen "it" before. The "clunkiness" I was referring to is only because "U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York" is a long string of text to include in any infobox. Thanks, KidAd • SPEAK 23:55, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Safiel: Thanks for the response! My point was exactly that: Strauss' situation is unique. All other prior officeholder were appointed by the president, so the appointer field would be redundant for them. But for Strauss it makes sense. It highlights the unusual process by which she was appointed and avoids the implication that she was a Trump appointee. As for the clunkiness, you're right. Perhaps "U.S. District Court, S.D.N.Y." would be more appropriate for the infobox? Plainsong (talk) 00:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
- (TPS) How about short but explanatory text? For example: "Appointed by the court pursuant to ". I agree that something should be there.
- It might be worth bringing this discussion to WT:LAW A lot of good collective ideas there. TJRC (talk) 01:22, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Safiel: Thanks for the response! My point was exactly that: Strauss' situation is unique. All other prior officeholder were appointed by the president, so the appointer field would be redundant for them. But for Strauss it makes sense. It highlights the unusual process by which she was appointed and avoids the implication that she was a Trump appointee. As for the clunkiness, you're right. Perhaps "U.S. District Court, S.D.N.Y." would be more appropriate for the infobox? Plainsong (talk) 00:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the help on Delaine Eastin entry
Thanks for the updates and the clean-up, much appreciated! User:Norramic (talk) 11:40, 15 March 2021 (UTC) |
FYI
I'm pretty sure adding you to the template does not produce a ping, but lmk if I'm wrong. Template:Did you know nominations/Julia Letlow. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:59, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Woops!
Apologies for goofing and removing the "term end" field. Didn't do that purposefully. NickCT (talk) 16:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
- NickCT, no problem at all. KidAd • SPEAK 19:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, KidAd
Thank you for creating Bethany Soye.
User:Celestina007, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:
Thanks for creating
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Celestina007}}
. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~
.
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Celestina007 (talk) 00:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
DYK for Julia Letlow
On 16 April 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Julia Letlow, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Julia Letlow won the special election for a seat in the United States House of Representatives after her husband died from COVID-19 before he could be sworn into office? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Julia Letlow. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Julia Letlow), 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.
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Senators' captions
Hello, why have have you been removing the image captions for various senators with the explanation "no, this is [x senator]"? What did you mean by that and why are you doing this? -Mad Mismagius (talk) 00:24, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- Mad Mismagius, Captions that include "Official portrait, year" are misleading and unnecessary. Per MOS:CAPLENGTH,
Infoboxes for things that change over time can mention the year of the image briefly, e.g. "Cosby in 2010" Bill Cosby
. Since there is no sitting member of the U.S. senate with the legal name "Official Portrait," adding this clunky nonsense to every infobox is unproductive. KidAd • SPEAK 01:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)- Do you have any backup for this precedent? If this were to be followed, this caption would have to removed from every senator, the nine most recent presidents, and the ten most recent supreme court justices. Sounds to me like you're proposing a big claim without any evidence. -Mad Mismagius (talk) 01:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- "
If this were to be followed, this caption would have to removed from every senator, the nine most recent presidents, and the ten most recent supreme court justices
" is wrong and just a variation of the weak WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. Articles are evaluated individually. KidAd • SPEAK 01:17, 23 April 2021 (UTC)- Fair enough. But I would still like to know: has there been a precedent against the "official portrait" caption, or is this something you decided yourself? I believe it's a valid question for me to ask, giving the sweeping effect it would have on senators' articles. -Mad Mismagius (talk) 01:22, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- As I said, because there is no member of the U.S. Senator named "Official Portrait," removing this odd caption does not require me to re-write any policies. It is also important to note that, if you were hell-bent on including these caption,
The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content
(per WP:ONUS).- I am hell-bent on including the captions, as it turns out, so I'll be working on this in the future. Thanks for taking the time to talk to me, I appreciate it. -Mad Mismagius (talk) 01:31, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- Certainly. I would be happy to reiterate my position in any future discussions. KidAd • SPEAK 01:33, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- I am hell-bent on including the captions, as it turns out, so I'll be working on this in the future. Thanks for taking the time to talk to me, I appreciate it. -Mad Mismagius (talk) 01:31, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- As I said, because there is no member of the U.S. Senator named "Official Portrait," removing this odd caption does not require me to re-write any policies. It is also important to note that, if you were hell-bent on including these caption,
- Fair enough. But I would still like to know: has there been a precedent against the "official portrait" caption, or is this something you decided yourself? I believe it's a valid question for me to ask, giving the sweeping effect it would have on senators' articles. -Mad Mismagius (talk) 01:22, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- "
- Do you have any backup for this precedent? If this were to be followed, this caption would have to removed from every senator, the nine most recent presidents, and the ten most recent supreme court justices. Sounds to me like you're proposing a big claim without any evidence. -Mad Mismagius (talk) 01:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, KidAd
Thank you for creating Katie Zolnikov.
User:Celestina007, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:
Thanks for creating, on a lighter note, I hope you see now that I’m not a member of a cabal or shadow government targeting you. Once again, thanks for creating.
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Celestina007}}
. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~
.
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Celestina007 (talk) 00:10, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, KidAd
Thank you for creating Kathy Whitman.
User:Celestina007, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:
Thanks for creating!
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Celestina007}}
. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~
.
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Celestina007 (talk) 20:19, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
April 2021
Hello, I'm TJRC. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Westlake, Ohio, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. TJRC (talk) 21:34, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring Tae Johnson/Brandon Wales
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. Yousef Raz (talk) 22:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Ways to improve Ely Ratner
Hello, KidAd,
Thank you for creating Ely Ratner.
I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:
More information is required to meet WP:BLP or the page may face a deletion process
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Whiteguru}}
. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~
. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.
Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
Whiteguru (talk) 10:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, KidAd
Thank you for creating Regina Young.
User:Celestina007, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:
Thanks for creating
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Celestina007}}
. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~
.
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Celestina007 (talk) 01:00, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, KidAd
Thank you for creating Brandon Markosek.
User:Celestina007, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:
Thanks for creating
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Celestina007}}
. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~
.
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Celestina007 (talk) 01:02, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, KidAd
Thank you for creating Julio Concepcion.
User:Celestina007, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:
Thanks for creating
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Celestina007}}
. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~
.
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Celestina007 (talk) 00:55, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, KidAd
Thank you for creating Cheikh Taylor.
User:Celestina007, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:
Thanks for creating mate.
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Celestina007}}
. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~
.
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Celestina007 (talk) 22:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Seems like you know what you are doing.
I don’t know if there’s any backstory or event that occurred in the past preventing you from requesting autopatrol, but if I may ask, why haven’t you requested for autopatrol rights yet? Asides for one error I saw you make, it seems like you know policy enough (at least on politicians) for you to be granted the perm. Could you just go here and request it already? you are probably the most prolific editor editing on politicians that I know of. If you do request it, I’d see to it that you are granted the perm. Celestina007 (talk) 22:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Celestina007, thank you for your kind words. I will do some research and get back to you. I am in the midst of final exams right now and would be happy to pursue this when things get a little less busy. Thanks again! KidAd • SPEAK 23:05, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
New SDSM&T Talk Thread
Thought you might want to look at another thread I put up on the Tech page. Another editor has essentially the same bone to pick with notability that you and I already chewed on so I just thought it might be a good idea to have a larger discussion on the issue - without - the animosity. And sorry for being an idiot. Happens... Ckruschke (talk) 17:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC)Ckruschke
- Ckruschke, thank you for alerting me to this new discussion, and thank you for your apology. I apologize as well. KidAd • SPEAK 19:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, KidAd
Thank you for creating Kate Farrar.
User:Atlantic306, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:
Hi, can you please fix reference 1
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Atlantic306}}
. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~
.
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Atlantic306 (talk) 23:05, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Autopatrolled granted
Hi KidAd, 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. However, you should consider adding relevant wikiproject talk-page templates, stub-tags and categories to new articles that you create if you aren't already in the habit of doing so, since your articles will no longer be systematically checked by other editors (User:Evad37/rater and User:SD0001/StubSorter.js are useful scripts which can help). Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Beeblebrox (talk) 23:41, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- @KidAd Strange: I still see your articles at the NPP and i have to patrol them, @Celestina007 also did a couple of minutes ago - has the right be granted correctly?! Unfortunately you always seem to forget/miss the Reflist Tag. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- CommanderWaterford, Interesting. It seems that autopatrolled is not listed as one of my user rights. Is that where I would find it? Maybe Beeblebrox can help. KidAd • SPEAK 21:47, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- A strange anomaly, you were indeed granted but for some reason your account is yet to reflect or acknowledge that. The tp of the granting admin is a good place to start from. Celestina007 (talk) 21:55, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- @KidAd Yes, indeed - your last rights change was 2018 as I see in your log, perhaps Beeblebrox just forgot to modify it.... CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:57, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- Derp. I did everything except actually flipping the switch. Done Sorry about that. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:58, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Beeblebrox, thanks for the swift response. Celestina007 (talk) 22:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, Beeblebrox. Thanks Celestina007 and CommanderWaterford as well. KidAd • SPEAK 22:20, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Beeblebrox, thanks for the swift response. Celestina007 (talk) 22:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- Derp. I did everything except actually flipping the switch. Done Sorry about that. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:58, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- CommanderWaterford, Interesting. It seems that autopatrolled is not listed as one of my user rights. Is that where I would find it? Maybe Beeblebrox can help. KidAd • SPEAK 21:47, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Corey Paris
Please reach out to Corey Paris to update pertinent information pertaining to his Wikipedia page.
- He is divorced (http://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/CaseDetail/PublicCaseDetail.aspx?DocketNo=FSTFA195022376S)
- His birthday is August 3, 1991
- He is styled Corey P. Paris or Corey Phillip Paris — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.121.220.226 (talk • contribs)
A barnstar for you!
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
For all your efforts in creating articles about US State level politicians. JW 1961 Talk 20:41, 11 May 2021 (UTC) |
- Joseywales1961, Thank you very much! KidAd • SPEAK 20:45, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Kevin Faulconer
You removed my edits to the article about Kevin Faulconer because they were not "neutral" enough. The entire Wikipedia entry for Faulconer is not at all neutral and appears to have been written by his people. As 44-year resident of San Diego, all I tried to do was correct the incorrect record. I think removing the edits was a mistake and results in Wikipedia supporting this false narrative. Very disappointing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JethroLund (talk • contribs)
- JethroLund, I'm sorry to hear that you're disappointed, but your edits were unacceptable. I suggest that you familiarize yourself with WP:NPOV, WP:GEVAL, and WP:DUE. Wikipedia is not a place for you to "correct the record," no matter how upset you are with your local politicians. If you want to advocate for a particular viewpoint or share your political commentary, start a blog or podcast. KidAd • SPEAK 21:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- So by your response you are saying that when a reader reads something that is incorrect, a reader is not supposed to edit what is incorrect? I thought that was part of the editing feature. This article for Faulconer is a campaign ad and by not allowing corrections, Wikipedia is perpetuating deliberate inaccuracies designed to help Faulconer in his election bid. I was not offering opinions, I was offering facts. JethroLund (talk) 23:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)JethroLund
- JethroLund, review your edit again. Passages like
Since Faulconer left office, his attempt to engineer this idea too hastily has fallen apart
andSome said this ballot result was a perfect illustration of how out-of-touch Faulconer was with the city.
are not framed as "facts." It all reads like poorly-written opposition research bullet points. If you want to include new information on a page, you must support it with WP:RS. KidAd • SPEAK 23:40, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- JethroLund, review your edit again. Passages like
- So by your response you are saying that when a reader reads something that is incorrect, a reader is not supposed to edit what is incorrect? I thought that was part of the editing feature. This article for Faulconer is a campaign ad and by not allowing corrections, Wikipedia is perpetuating deliberate inaccuracies designed to help Faulconer in his election bid. I was not offering opinions, I was offering facts. JethroLund (talk) 23:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)JethroLund
Jewel Kelly request for deletion
Any particular reason you feel this article should be deleted? 3rdvendetta (talk) 23:08, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- 3rdvendetta, fails WP:NPOL. KidAd • SPEAK 23:11, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- KidAd, understood. I suppose I was thinking that it's beneficial to include people who are running for those positions in case people who consider voting for them or others want to see more information in one place. I am now familiarizing myself with WP:NPOL and other guidelines, but it seems to me that this can be a bit unfair for candidates that have not held positions, like incumbents. Is their a way to include campaign site information, possibly on the 2022 U.S. Senate election in Missouri page?
A barnstar for you!
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | ||
Thank you for your endless edits to many politicians throughout the United States. I would also like to thank you for improving my editing. Jon698 (talk) 05:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC) |
- BTW you should join the Wikipedia Discord server. It would be great for you to be there. Jon698 (talk) 05:52, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, Jon698. I just might. KidAd • SPEAK 05:54, 4 June 2021 (UTC)