User talk:Novemberjazz: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:45, 4 May 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Tpdwkouaa Sorry about that! KidAd (talk) 08:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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. Sounder Bruce 02:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Sounder Bruce 03:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SounderBruce, I will keep that in mind. Thanks for the reminder. 👍 KidAd (talk) 03:06, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Collg76 Hello, and thank you for your message. First, I have removed the content added in this edit. Wikipedia is built on reliable sources, and should remain neutral per WP:NPOV. Wikipedia pages are not campaign advertisements or campaign websites. If the Leger Fernandez campaign wants to refute what reliable sources say, they can issue a press release. I am also curious to know if you are affiliated with the Leger Fernandez campaign or a company working for her campaign. If so, you will need to declare it per WP:COI. KidAd (talk) 22:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Extended content

Dear KidAd, Before you revert my edit to the Teresa Leger Fernandez article again, please take a closer look at it, including the extensive citations. I will be happy to engage with you further about it, if you wish. The intent, as stated, is to clarify the dark money issue and to characterize accurately what took place. Anticipating that you will legitimately also want to know whether I am promoting a political campaign, the answer is no, and I am not a party activist. I am well-informed because I live in Santa Fe, NM, have followed the campaign closely, and have long experience with disinformation as a former Foreign Service Officer and professor of international relations. I also know both Teresa Leger Fernandez and Valerie Plame. However, the issue of interference in the campaign is what matters. The primary contribution I have made it to expand the range of facts and reliability of sources -- which include an article written by Washington Post head fact checker Glenn Klessler TRGreen (talk) 18:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TRGreen, Is it safe to assume that you also edited as Collg76? If so, please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policy on using multiple accounts.
Speaking of policy, both this edit and this edit violate WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:SYNTH. You may have extensive local knowledge that I do not, but Wikipedia is based upon reliable sources and should be written neutrally. It is not your place to insert supposition or editorialization such as, The competitive primary among liberal candidates was largely civil. However, a late influx of "dark money" contributed by groups that use existing campaign finance law to remain anonymous, marred the campaign or such external interference was unusual for New Mexico politics, and it was unclear whether it had any effect on the outcome, given Leger Fernandez’s front runner status, extensive endorsements, and advertising openly sponsored on her behalf.
If I take your claim that you know both Teresa Leger Fernandez and Valerie Plame at face value, it is important to familiarize yourself with conflict of interest guidelines. Even if you are not a paid staffer or consultant, you still may be violating COI without knowing it. Your personal relationship with the page's subject could prevent you from editing subjectively. KidAd (talk) 18:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@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:

"During the primary, Leger Fernandez was criticized for attack ads against Plame, including one that featured swastikas superimposed over Plame's eyes, a reference to Plame's past comments that were perceived as anti-Semitic.[12] Leger Fernandez later denied any involvement with the ads.[13] Leger Fernandez was later criticized for her campaign's use of funds donated by Practical Inc. and Avacy Initiatives Inc., so-called "dark money" groups that do not disclose their donors.[14]"
It was to correct this record with material improvements, again based on a wider range of sources, that I offered the edit. The core of the problem is that there is more to the issue of dark money and the characterizations of both Plame and Leger Fernandez; additional detail and context helps to get this right. To be as concise as possible: 1) A split emerged between the newsroom and the opinion editor at Santa Fe New Mexican and the Taos News, which have the same owner, after the papers endorsed Leger Fernandez. The news editor disagreed and the assigned reporter favored Plame, leading to reporting that highlighted dark money allegations by other candidates and cast Leger Fernandez in a poor light. It did not seem useful to go into this level of local detail in Wikipedia, but it does bear on the need to rely on additional sources. 2) The statement that Leger Fernandez "was criticized for attack ads" appears neutral, but those criticisms originated with competing candidates who implied she was associated with them when in fact she denounced them. 3) The negative campaign that tagged Plame as anti-Semitic was based, not on comments she made, but on a single three year-old tweet and a clumsy initial reaction, for which she apologized.
Again, competing candidates alleged that Leger Fernandez's campaign used dark money funds, and the newspaper repeated the criticism. The fact that she has spoken out against dark money and has the endorsement of End Citizens United are meaningful.
Finally, regarding COI, like you, I take it seriously. The benefit of knowing both Leger Fernandez and Plame is that I can vouch for their integrity and authentic dedication to public service. This translates into a desire to see both of them treated fairly and the circumstances recorded correctly in Wikipedia. Nothing more. As I said, without knowing anything about your own interest, to the extent that a COI concern remains, all the more reason for you to take a good faith look at what I have offered, especially the additional citations.TRGreen (talk) 23:54, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind, but I've made some minor formatting fixes to your text improve readability. The only reason I asked if you were another user (Collg76) is that you chose to write your first message to me as a part of an older conversation, and answered a question I had posed to another user. While I can appreciate that you are applying the same professional standards to this contribution that [you] would to any other publication, I must remind you that Wikipedia may not be like other publications you have written for. See WP:NOT for more information on this. I have not followed any journalistic disputes occurring between local publications, and I don't view it as relevant. I can't think of any other way to explain – concisely – that it is not your job to "correct the record." Wikipedia must be reliably-sourced and neutral. A format such as: "Person A was accused of [something] by Person B. Person A denies involvement" is about as neutral as they come. This edit completely removes reliably sourced information if favor of "all sides are great!" content, all while adding WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:SYNTH. As a person with four edit to your name, I don't expect you to be a perfect Wikipedia contributor. Still, it would be helpful to you to become acquainted with basic Wikipedia policy before making significant edits to politics-related articles. KidAd (talk) 00:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KidAd, No problem fixing the format, and thank you for taking the time to share your knowledge of Wikipedia policies and practices. I have used and donated to Wikipedia for many years, have shared information with others who were writing articles, and guide students who use Wikipedia for entry level research. Comparable professional standards include, for example, the publication ethics of Oxford University Press. You are right, Wikipedia is not like any other publication; its exacting and technical rules, combined with its unique information age vulnerabilities, are not as intuitive as they might seem to someone who has been immersed in them for a long time.

I share your concern and caution when it comes to the sensitivity of political issues. Even though the NM 3D campaign may be a small teapot, the intentional and unintentional effects of dark money and disinformation spread indiscriminately across local, national, and international dimensions. All the more reason for careful stewardship of individual reputations as well as information integrity. Assuming we also share the goals of posting a high-quality, neutral, and reliably sourced article, I hope we will be able to agree on changes to what you have written based on my contribution. The crucial fixes concern attribution language, the addition of sources, and inclusion of facts essential to context.

To get to specifics, let me refer to your note: A format such as: "Person A was accused of [something] by Person B. Person A denies involvement" is about as neutral as they come. There are three passages that do not follow this format. By using the passive voice, what you wrote leaves attribution imprecise and implies allegations that are neither neutral nor established in fact.

1) “…Leger Fernandez was criticized for attack ads against Plame….” This passage implies that Leger Fernandez was behind the attack ads without attributing the source of the criticism. The fact that political opponents leveled this criticism is material to the allegation, as is information about the Alliance to Combat Extremism as the source of the ads. Leger Fernandez’s denunciation was substantially stronger than a simple denial.

2) “…a reference to Plame's past comments that were perceived as anti-Semitic….” This incorrectly implies that Plame may have made anti-Semitic comments and does not attribute a source. Plame did not make comments, but rather retweeted an article titled “Jews Are Driving America’s Wars,” which incensed the Jewish community and created of a scandal. However, that she made an error and repeatedly apologized is material.

3) “Leger Fernandez was later criticized for her campaign's use of funds donated by… so-called "dark money" groups….” This implies a connection between Leger Fernandez’s campaign and dark money groups without attributing political opponents as the source. If this were true, it would be an FEC violation and therefore have serious legal as well as reputational implications. The fact that End Citizens United endorsed her is material because it contradicts the allegation.

Additional notes:

Sources: Because your article relies on citations from the Santa Fe New Mexican and Taos News, the issue of bias is directly relevant to its reliability as a source. Other reporting, for example, in the Albuquerque Journal does not have this problem. The attack ads against Plame were the subject of a Washington Post fact-checking piece, among other reporting. The Jewish Insider first identified the sponsors of ads that supported Leger Fernandez as Democratic Party operatives; other newspapers followed suit. Dark Money and disinformation are the subjects of well-documented Wikipedia articles. These and other sources add neutral and reliable substantive information.

Context: That the competitive primary among liberal candidates was largely civil is factual, verifiable, and readily sourced. Other characterizations that were widely reported and not disputed include: that a late influx of dark money marred the campaign, that the authenticity of the Alliance to Combat Extremism is questionable, that there is a non-trivial distinction between anonymously funded negative and positive campaign ads, that external interference is unusual for New Mexico politics, and that it is unclear whether dark money had any effect on the outcome. While subject to judgment, these convey important understanding of context.

How would you like to proceed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TRGreen (talk • contribs) 18:15, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Read WP:CONS and WP:TALKDONTREVERT. KidAd (talk) 02:47, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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! ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 20:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know that you've been here awhile, but I just couldn't find any welcomes! (Even in your archives!) Cheers, ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 20:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Michael Brooks (political commentator)

Hi there. Given that there is now significant independent coverage of the subject (Fox News, Jacobin Magazine, Heavy.com to name a few), I kindly ask you to reconsider and remove the deletion discussion you have started. His death may or may not make him notable, but the coverage of his death so far clearly shows this is a notable person. The main concern in the 2018 AfD was a lack of independent coverage, but this is clearly no longer an issue. Thanks. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:43, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. Unfortunately, the page is (and was previously) not supported by enough WP:RS coverage to warrant its existence. His untimely death is certainly tragic, but coverage of his death is not enough to merit a page per WP:SINGLEEVENT. Additionally, I don't think Heavy.com is a reliable source (see: perennial sources. Again, I thank you for leaving a message and assuming good faith, but I do not believe the subject meets notability and will not be retracting the AfD. KidAd (💬💬) 03:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining further. I can inform that Brooks is not known for a single event, as can be seen from these articles. It is indeed a single event that has caused these articles to be published, but the articles clearly describe him as being notable for other things. I have no comment on the reliability of Heavy.com. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:54, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'm happy to discuss further in the AfD. KidAd (💬💬) 03:54, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I assume by the time you read this message you would see the progress on the AfD. If you have not yet, I am sure you will do so. While you have a right to nominate articles for deletion, it would reflect positively on you if you withdrew the nomination before the discussion is closed. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:32, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at has been accepted

2020 Georgia's 5th congressional district special election, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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

The article has been assessed as 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.

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

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

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

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Bkissin (talk) 14:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Sara Gideon

Bates' action is indeed on Bates page, but the House leader's decision to remove or not remove him, and when, is about the House leader (Gideon), not Bates. 2601:681:4A00:4FE0:983E:F4B:EB86:72FB (talk) 04:49, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion on Gideon's page is WP:UNDUE, but feel free to gain consensus on the article's talk page. KidAd (💬💬) 05:09, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kidad: we have been gaining consensus there. It is sourced from multiple sources; it is a vote about her leadership 52-71 in the House. That was about Gideon, not Bates per se. First vandalism warning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:681:4A00:4FE0:4438:C80D:13F3:B012 (talk) 02:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no discussion anywhere on the removal of this content. Feel free to start one on the article's talk page, and do not accuse other users of vandalism without cause. KidAd (💬💬) 02:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is extensive discussion in the talk. Please do your homework before you delete. Also, you gave 0 reasons for the deletion. It is about a 52-71 vote about Gideon's handling of Bates' alleged sex offense as a House member. Eliminating large swaths of text, without a reason, after extensive discussion, without looking at any of the 'talk' about it, sounds like vandalism to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:681:4A00:4FE0:4438:C80D:13F3:B012 (talk) 02:27, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a link to the consensus that supports your changes. You did not make a single edit before this and have never participated in a talk page discussion. KidAd (💬💬) 02:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC) I have made numerous edits to the page.[reply]

Interesting experience on the Sara Gideon and US Maine 2020 pages. I study fairly extensively a vote in the Maine House towards Speaker Gideon, concerning a potential sex offender representative in the house, Dillon Bates. A vote is done, 52-71. I report this as accurately as I possibly can, with 4-5 different, neutral citations. I get erased, often without explanation and threatened with being blocked. I seek an arbitration after I am repeatedly erased. Users: Neutrality, KidAd act as each other's arbitrator. Having looked at their own pages, I see they are also in other brouhahas over deleting information that paints a democratic candidate in a bad light, or inserting partisan talk. When I contribute, every time (within minutes: I hope they are adequately compensated!) one of them has said nothing (half the time), or the other half, said: 'no references!', 'irrelevant', 'bizarre language', 'BPL', and the like, I have answered their concerns, trying to seek consensus, and warning against potential vandalism. What is disconcerting about this experience is that it is power speaking to truth: if you have extensive time to edit wikipedia pages, you are heavily partisan invested, and you attain a higher status, your privilege is to edit, not provide adequate justification, and lock pages. Arbitrary, biased power is unfortunate. Apparently, if two hyper-partisan wiki editors don't like the information, that is enough to 'prevent consensus'. Not that we could find a common resolution, neutral language, or shortening of its mention. No, rejection, usually without explanation. I will keep trying to have my case heard: that a potential mishandling of a sex offense case in the Maine House by the Speaker is wiki worthy. I hope I can find a fair arbiter, besides a few who take turns acting as eraser one minute, then my arbiter the next, even in an election year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:681:4A00:4FE0:4438:C80D:13F3:B012 (talk • contribs)

I already read this rant on Neutrality's page. Your violation of multiple wikipedia policies will likely get you blocked. KidAd (Talk) 03:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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. Step hen 00:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Gotcha. I wasn't aware of that policy. KidAd (💬💬) 01:20, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Just FYI, I've resurrected and revamped her article. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 15:20, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thank you. I will work on it more tomorrow as well. KidAd (talk) 05:01, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Theresa Greenfield (August 7)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

This draft, as written, does not appear to indicate that the appropriate notability criterion is satisfied. In particular, this draft does not appear to indicate that WP:NBIO is satisfied. If one of the criteria is satisfied, please revise this draft appropriately, with a reliable source, if necessary stating on the talk page or in AFC comments which criterion is met, and resubmit. It is the responsibility of the submitter to show that a subject satisfies a notability criterion.

You may ask for advice about the notability criteria at the Teahouse.

In particular, see and refer to WP:NBIO for notability, which is the guideline that the subject should be evaluated against.

This draft was already declined once, saying that candidates for political office are normally not considered notable, unless they were notable in their own right prior to becoming candidates. This draft has been resubmitted without explaining why the subject is notable. She does not satisfy political notability, and does not appear to satisfy general notability independently. This draft should only be resubmitted if it specifies, in AFC comments or on the draft talk page, how the subject is considered notable.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

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.

Robert McClenon (talk) 05:02, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Huh?

[1]. Doug Weller talk 13:32, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Fine, I thought it must be a mistake. Doug Weller talk 12:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

RoundSquare Great! Thanks for the clarification. KidAd (talk) 17:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

MrX, Gotcha. I hear you loud and clear. KidAd (talk) 18:10, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- MrX 🖋 18:39, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jessica Castleberry has been accepted

Jessica Castleberry, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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

The article has been assessed as 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.

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

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

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

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Pi (Talk to me!) 11:12, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

Great job on Dan Ryan - keep it up! Meatsgains^(talk) 01:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

BiostatSci, While I appreciate your message, I will reiterate what I told "Desert Diva" on her talk page. In writing There are several updates that we need to make on the page, you seem to imply that you are being paid for your edits. Per WP:COI, if you are affiliated with Stansbury in any way – professional or personal – you must declare it and avoid the page. I will leave a generic COI template on your talk page for more information. KidAd talk 23:02, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)

BiostatSci, "Desert Diva" claimed here that she was a volunteer for a County Democratic Party org. Do you work for the same organization? KidAd talk 23:41, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, there are several problems with your edit here. First, you unnecessarily capitalized academic disciplines. This is not standard practice, unless the discipline is a proper noun (English, Spanish, etc.). Additional information you added was sourced to "VoteSmart." In my experience, the website can provide helpful biographical information, but is not always the most reliable source. In most cases, it is preferable to find another WP:RS, like a newspaper article. Also, why did you remove that Stansbury was succeeded by Jimmie Hall? This information is sourced. KidAd talk 23:49, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

You have not addressed your possible WP:COI. KidAd talk 03:18, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some baklava for you!

Just reviewed John J. O'Connell (politician), nice job. Cheers Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 08:12, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Burgess Owens

What do you think about my edits here? Marquardtika (talk) 04:13, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marquardtika, looks kosher to me!

. KidAd talk 04:14, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Amy Perruso

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

Handouts
Choosing an article to edit Editing an article • Add images to articles Citing sources on Wikipedia
Additional Resources
You can find answers to many student questions on our Q&A site, ask.wikiedu.org

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:17, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Template:Z33

Robert McClenon (talk) 00:09, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

I have already explained why that is your responsibility per WP:ONUS. KidAd talk 19:33, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@KidAd: ONUS goes to the information within an article, not the format. Snickers2686 (talk) 19:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So you're refusing to provide any support for the strange infobox formatting? KidAd talk 19:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Empty Spaces saga

Extended content

Empty Spaces pt. 2

I 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)

Self-revert your disruptive edits or you will be blocked. KidAd talk 21:39, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to talk to you but you're failing on communicate on this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexr9873 (talk • contribs)

I have communicated clearly that the spaces you are edit-warring provide nothing. They only clutter the infobox. You have chosen to edit-war blank spaces and taunt me on my talk page. Additionally, when you leave a comment, sign it. KidAd talk 21:43, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)

Instead of communicating with me on your talk page, you did this and this. You also insist on calling me "your boy" or referring to yourself as my "boi." None of that is respectful. I will again suggest that you self-revert this. You are already violating WP:ONUS, which states "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Here, the disputed content is empty space, and you are responsible for gaining consensus to include it. That is not done through taunting or edit warring. And your signature is still not right. KidAd talk 21:56, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 self-revert, or not? KidAd talk 22:08, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Blank spaces shouldn't exist in any infobox. If there are pages I created or edited with infoboxes that include blank spaces, they should be removed. When using the visual editor tool on Wikipedia, blank spaces are automatically added and should be removed when editing in markup. I don't expect any of that to make sense to you, but your attempts at a "gotcha" are not productive. KidAd talk 22:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Empty Spaces pt 3 - warnings and advice to both of you

As 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:

I was brought into this dispute, as a result of a report of vandalism made by KidAd against Alexr9873 at WP:AIV (diff).
I declined to act as I did not deem insertion of blank spaces into Infoboxes as vandalism (Wikipedia:Vandalism states: Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism.)
Some three minutes after my decline, Anthony Bradbury left the above final warning message (possible edit conflict?).
Checking talk pages, there has been quite some cross exchanges between both editors, perhaps not helped by the way each party has interacted with one another. (I'll ask now: please nobody call me broh, bruv or such similar terms, which I find condescending, but appreciate others do not)
There is no policy that states we must not have spaces within parameters in Infoboxes so that they appear aligned. In fact, most examples I've looked at do have well-spaced parameters. e.g. Template:Infobox person; Template:Infobox settlement, Template:Infobox mountain.
Articles created by KidAd have also included large spaces between parameters ([2], [3], [4], and thus their claims that this is unacceptable and that they should be reverted do not seem valid.
WP:ONUS has been used by KidA as a rationale for not accepting the addition of spaces against their view of it. I do not accept that as a valid rationale as ONUS relates to content, not formatting, and the double standards used in their arguments with Alexr9873 (when seen against their own article creations) is itself disruptive, and WP:BITEY
I do feel that Alexr9873 has been disruptive in making innumerable minor edits which have solely changed the spaces present within Infoboxes and nothing else. These changes have attracted others to revert unnecessary alterations - a little like changing one valid spelling for another is disruptive and unhelpful.
Had those edits occurred alongside other more significant changes to the articles, I would not see that as disruptive at all. But changes for changes sake because one editor prefers one layout version, whilst another editor prefers a different one are not acceptable. If allowed to continue unchecked, we would have constant switching back and forth, which would be very disruptive.
Whilst I have not checked for breaches of WP:3RR (and nor do I propose to at this time) I will warn both editors that constantly reverting one another to their preferred formatting could well lead to editing sanctions against you. Vandalism is exempt from WP:3RR but, as stated above, this is not the case here, though the editing has proven disruptive.
Alexr9873 has been given a 'final warning' by a fellow administrator, Anthony Bradbury which was perhaps one level too high for the obvious disruption that purely editing to insert extra blank spaces has caused here. That said, unless Anthony chooses to change it, I am prepared to leave it in place as I want to see no more petty editing with just insertion or removal of blank spaces into Infoboxes, or wholesale pushing of the already aligned '=' signs a few spaces further right. Alex, are you agreeable to this, and either make no more Infobox spacing changes, or only to change Infoboxes as part of genuine main article edits which alters other content, and with no 'gaming' of that agreement?
@KidAd: you are warned not to over assert elements of policy on other users which are either inappropriate under the circumstances, or hypocritical when seen against your own recent editing. Do not use WP:AIV as a means to wrongly accuse another editor of vandalism - perhaps re-familiarise yourself with WP:VANDALISM?
If anyone feels this 'third party opinion' (which I offer in good faith) is unfair or seriously misinterpreting policy or community expectations, you are free to take your concerns to WP:ANI to get a broader opinion, but this is unlikely to be an easy ride for either editor.
And finally, despite you each having principled views on layout, it's clear you're both wanting to see this encyclopaedia improve, and I thank you for that. So can we stay nice and polite in our dealings with one another, please, and simply move on to bigger and more important things? Nick Moyes (talk) 00:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Moyes, thank you for the time you invested in this matter. I have read your assessment carefully and will make the necessary adjustments going forward. As this dispute seems to have cooled, I plan on collapsing the two sections related to this dispute and moving on, barring any additional information. KidAd talk 00:44, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Notification of new discussion concerning Marquita Bradshaw

You recently expressed an opinion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marquita_Bradshaw. (That AfD closed Sept 4 with consensus expressed as "The result was keep. A discussion on whether or not to merge or redirect can happen after this AfD.") A new proposal, to redirect searches for "Marquita Bradshaw" to 2020 United States Senate election in Tennessee is being discussed at Talk:2020 United States Senate election in Tennessee#Proposed merge of Marquita Bradshaw into 2020 United States Senate election in Tennessee. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:54, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Your application of "fair use" here is incredibly misguided. Please read WP:FAIR for Wikipedia's official policy before making your own conclusions. As for your practice of inserting text that has been directly copy-and-pasted from sources (complete with URLS), I advise you to stop immediately. You misunderstand that sources, including the URLS you listed, must be cited properly. Text from these sources must be paraphrased. Per WP:CSECTION, An article dedicated to negative criticism of a topic is usually discouraged because it tends to be a point-of-view fork, which is generally prohibited by the neutral point-of-view policy. KidAd talk 22:14, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I suggest that you self revert for the reasons provided in my previous comment. Your edits violate WP:COPYVIO, WP:UNDUE, and WP:CSECTION. Your violation of WP:3RR, along with WP:ASPERSIONS cast above, may result in a block. KidAd talk 22:34, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please place new comments at the bottom of the discussion so I am able to see them. It appears that you have no intention of even acknowledging my advice, but I will continue anyway. Per WP:PARAPHRASE Editors should generally summarize source material in their own words, adding inline citations as required by the sourcing policy. Quotes are allowed on Wikipedia when properly attributed and sourced. Quotes are not appropriate in they way you include them, without attribution or proper citations. Your comment IF, there is an actual problem with the way the sources are cited, then it is up to you to either correct displays a clear misunderstanding of how Wikipedia operates. New users are entirely welcome to edit productively. Help can be found anywhere you look, specifically at Wikipedia:GettingStarted. It is, however, not my responsibility to clean up your repeated mistakes after you display hostility, incivility, and an unwillingness to learn or listen. As I have continued to interact with you when most editors would likely abandon the conversation as a waste of time and effort, you have only responded with insults and accusations.r KidAd talk 23:06, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

My mistake

Apologies for the revert at Bob Dole, I thought you were deleting my addition. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 23:12, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken, No worries. The content you added was reliably-sourced.

KidAd talk 23:15, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 and The 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Nikema Williams

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

CookieMonster755, I certainly will. KidAd talk 21:32, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Benjamin Edwards (artist)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Record of AFC Declines

In looking at an AFC submission, Draft:Sima Ladjevardian, I see that in July 2020, you removed the record of one of the previous declines. It appears that you did this in the course of making minor improvements. Maybe you removed it by accident, or maybe you removed it because you thought that only the most recent decline needs to be displayed. Please don't do that again. We want the whole history to be visible. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:30, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Tim Keller (politician)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)

Jennifer Hansen‎

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Nomination of Marni von Wilpert for deletion

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

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

HickoryOughtShirt?4, as do I. And thank you for creating the page. KidAd talk 00:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Adriane Johnson

AHHH, you beat me! We edit conflicted. Good job though! HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 03:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HickoryOughtShirt?4, thank you! You can grab the next one.

KidAd talk 03:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

HickoryOughtShirt?4, We should collaborate more! Maybe at West Virginia House of Delegates? KidAd talk 05:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Sounds great! Starting tomorrow... KidAd talk 06:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Hey you're famous! Woohoo!

Drmies (talk) 02:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is cool! --JBL (talk) 01:03, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JayBeeEll, thanks! KidAd talk 01:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Liz, Thank you. I will remember that for next time. KidAd talk 06:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I've never been told that removing double spaces is harmful in any way. KidAd talk 01:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Quite a few ambassador articles use this format if you actually pay attention. Snickers2686 (talk) 04:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not a convincing explanation. KidAd talk 05:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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, especially name, year, are useless clutter. KidAd talk 00:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I would be happy to do that with you :) ― Tartan357 ^Talk 19:42, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Tartan357, my position is that Name, year and Name in year captions are highly unnecessary clutter, especially on recent photos. KidAd talk 01:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I think that WP:CAPLENGTH is far too open-ended. The No caption and Short caption sections directly contradict each other. There should be a clearer policy that establishes If nothing more than the page name needs to be said about the image and therefor if the caption should be omitted as being redundant with the title of the infobox. KidAd talk 01:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

My comment is available for viewing on the talk page. KidAd talk 03:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

EGL1234, Appreciate this! KidAd • SPEAK 06:45, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

A cup of tea for you!

Thanks again. HistoricalAccountings (talk) 08:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

TJRC, Thanks for letting me know. KidAd • SPEAK 02:58, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Bluerasberry, thank you very much! KidAd • SPEAK 18:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

(TPS) How about short but explanatory text? For example: "Appointed by the court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 546(d)". 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Woops!

Apologies for goofing and removing the "term end" field. Didn't do that purposefully. NickCT (talk) 16:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NickCT, no problem at all. KidAd • SPEAK 19:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Certainly. I would be happy to reiterate my position in any future discussions. KidAd • SPEAK 01:33, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

[1] 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.

[1]

@@ Line 1,054: / Line 1,054: @@
 '''[[User:Celestina007|Celestina007]]''' ([[User talk:Celestina007|talk]]) 01:02, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
-== SDSM&T ==
-Hi - welcome to Wikipedia! I see you have been an editor for a little over a year and its great that you have taken such an interest in Wikipedia!  We need more editors with your passion.
-Unfortunately, I am firmly in the right on this issue. You are attempting to change long-standing page policy and normal Wikipedia rules are to restore the page and take the discussion to Talk. You did not do that so your continual attempts to revert my correct restoration were very disruptive and against Wiki policy. Thus it is highly curious that you would post the three revert rules on my page. As I said in my last edit notes, please do not use Wikipedia rules as a hammer corroborating your improper edits and attempt to shout people down - especially when you obviously do not understand what these policies mean. That is not what Wikipedia administrative rules are for.
-Please take your argument to Talk and justify your request to change the page notability policies rather than to continue disruptive page edits.  I look forward to collaboratively working to make the SDSM&T page a better product.
-Yours - [[User:Ckruschke|Ckruschke]] ([[User talk:Ckruschke|talk]]) 18:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)Ckruschke