User talk:Jerzeykydd/July10-Aug10

Lindsay Graham

Your invited to discuss your revert at Talk:Lindsey Graham#Adding in NYT info about his personal life. Thanks! ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 23:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Quintana

I will not engage in an edit war, but I find your timing dubious on the heels of Hairhorn's change. This opening paragraph has been constant since the election. All I did was correct the ballot designations and add the appropriate source. You may want to add source to ballot designations below before they too get changed. The Secretary of State is the final election authority, and those are the titles as they appeared on the ballot. If the State got it wrong then this is not the forum to address it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cleverclaus (talk • contribs) 02:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am a political science Professor at USC. I respect most your election coverage, but you are wrong here. The LA Times/Field Poll have Carly Fiorina and Boxer in a statistical dead heat 47:44. If Kaus and Quintana endorse Fiorina, Boxer is done. Let this play out two weeks. If I am wrong you can remove it then.--Cleverclaus (talk) 07:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rookie

By the way, you probably shouldn't go around calling people "Rookie." Tisane ^talk/_stalk 01:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, he did so with me too. A "major" contributor/editor indeed! But doesn't seem to follow WP:BITE.--S. Rich (talk) 19:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums#Polling

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums#Polling. —Markles 10:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})[reply]

Sonia Sotomayor Supreme Court nomination

Hi. You appear to be engaging in an edit war with 65.10.164.253 (talk · contribs) over whether or not the Senate opposition to the Sonia Sotomayor Supreme Court nomination should be called a filibuster. Please stop this now, engage the other user on the article's talk page, and take other steps as needed to reach a consensus or resolve your dispute. Thanks. Richwales (talk · contribs · review) 04:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

You said it had to be at least 5% for a candidate to be added to the infobox, and that is not true. Toa Nidhiki05 17:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are also violating WP:Consensus by removing an individual that has received speculation in multiple sources in the past six months.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have made four reverts today and that is indeed a violation. If you undo your last revert I will not report you. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you seem unwilling to cooperate, you have been reported.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked for a period of twenty-four hours for violation of the three-revert rule on Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2012. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator. For alternative methods to appeal, see Wikipedia:Appealing a block. -- tariqabjotu 21:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ElectionsCT

What's your reason for the abbreviations? They aren't advisable, and might be against MOS. Or at least I hope they are. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No response? I'm changing it back, and all the others I saw that have abbreviations. --Muboshgu (talk) 21:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"List of United States Senators" pages

Please see my recent edits to List of United States Senators from New Mexico. I broke out the electoral history into a separate column which no longer clutter up the other columns. I know you're very involved in these kinds of articles, so I'd like your input.—Markles 13:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

US House Elections, 2010

I'm not really involved in the page right now, but I definitely like this better. Maybe for retired/ primaries incumbents I'd add on the main page some info about the primaries, but good work. --CylonCAG (talk) 18:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency in PA-12

With reference to this edit summary, can you explain how/why consistency between articles (which, to my knowledge, is not codified as a policy or guideline on the English Wikipedia) is preferable to adhering to a basic standard of legibility and accessibility? Thanks. – Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 20:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of United States House of Representatives elections, 2010 - predictions

I have nominated United States House of Representatives elections, 2010 - predictions, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States House of Representatives elections, 2010 - predictions. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Safiel (talk) 00:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:FEED backlog

Hello, I see you made a request at WP:FEED a long time ago, but have continued to be active on Wikipedia and made good edits to the encyclopedia. Since you have posted on WP:FEED in the past, I would like to suggest that if you want please try and help out at the page, as we have a massive backlog. It'd be really great if you provided some advice to other, new users on their articles.

To do this, you'll just need to take a look at their article, which they'll post the link to, and maybe see what perhaps can be improved, like adding sections, references or links, much like you would do with any other article, except you are giving feedback rather than making actual edits. After getting some idea of what needs to be improved, you just need to tell them briefly underneath. It's really simple but incredibly useful to new users and their articles, and helps to overall increase the quality of these new articles.

I hope you will at least consider, thanks. Please send me a message if you have any further questions. Thanks a lot! Chevy monte carlo 13:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vitter

Per WP:BRD -- you boldly edited, I reverted and now we discuss. The changes you are suggesting are radical and require discussion first. Please don't re-revert. I will write up my objections on the talk page. Thanks! ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 20:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jerzeykydd. You have new messages at Talk:David Vitter.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Melissa Bean

If you want to discuss language changes in some paragraphs in the Melissa Bean, that's one thing. To angrily revert edits which were mostly correcting template links and sequencing the article to be consistent with similar articles (removing the focus from just her political campaigns) isn't being reasonable. I see similar problems listed on your Talk page, so consider this yet another warning. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a POV political blog. Flatterworld (talk) 14:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

August 2010

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:United States Senate election in Georgia, 2010. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. – Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 17:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WQA

There is a thread on the above board about your insulting comment at Talk:United States Senate election in Georgia, 2010. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response

I decided to stay on until after the mid-term elections. I suppose I should remove the retired label. =) America69 (talk) 16:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation request: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-08-06/United States Senate elections in Illinois, 2010

Hi,
User:Linuxrocks123 mentioned your name in a request for mediation. However, as far as I can tell, mediation has not been discussed on the article talkpage. In case you weren't aware, the mediation cabal page is at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-08-06/United States Senate elections in Illinois, 2010. Would you like to try dealing with the disagreement through mediation? If involved parties don't want to use the mediation cabal, I will close the case. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help, either way.
Thanks,
bobrayner (talk) 21:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did think about it. I still hold my position along with the Illinois board of elections. I am not asking for you to allow every body who wants to be on the ballot. I am only stating that it is inaccurate to exclude official candidates. There are only four official candidates as of today. I was unaware of the 5% rule. I did ask you to inform me about it, but did not see any further discussion on the discussion page about it. The 5% rule is ridiculous. There is already an official process to choose who is officially on the ballot in Illinois. If you can make it through that process, god bless you. Adding the photo of an official candidate to a page about the election that he is competing in is not vandalism.

I do apologize for any other vandalism that may have been perceived. Ejmarten (talk) 03:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Jerzeykydd. You have new messages at Hysteria18's talk page.
Message added 21:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Proposed deletion of Danny Tarkanian

The article Danny Tarkanian has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

person is not notable

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.
Sorry. I didn't put it up, I just wanted to make sure you knew it was up for deletion. DeadlyOps (talk) 23:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

I have a huge problem with the 5% whatever. It doesn't seem to be a rule in any case and I think that mediation might be appropriate. I've cited my reasons for editing. I haven't seen you cite yours. I guess the fact that I'm trying to get accurate information about who is legally on the ballot in this election makes me a member of his campaign? If you want to call me that, I'd be honored. I do want to see him have a chance at being elected if that counts. I am not being compensated in any way for my efforts. Can you say the same?

If you really believe that rules are rules, you'll let the edit's stand. Here's the legal basis for my argument [1] That is actually coming from the government body that makes the rules for Illinois elections. None of the polls that are cited on the page even included Labno as a candidate, but yet he got 45,000 petition signatures? I'd say that your polls are skewed. The law however, as you said, is the law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ejmarten (talk • contribs) 04:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)Ejmarten (talk) 05:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you have yet to cite the "Rule" that you keep referring to.

Edit warring notice

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on United States Senate elections in Illinois, 2010. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Stifle (talk) 20:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--TM 23:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 weeks for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Toddst1 (talk) 23:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your question regarding length of block

Per Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Duration_of_blocks, the duration of blocks should thus be related to the likelihood of a user repeating inappropriate behavior. Longer blocks for repeated and high levels of disruption is to reduce administrative burden; it is under presumption that such users are likely to cause frequent disruption or harm in future. Administrators should consider:

the severity of the behavior;
whether the user has engaged in that behavior before.

Given your recent WQA, previous block and recent pattern of edits, I have implemented a moderately long block. You will note that two other admins have already endorsed this block on ANI. Toddst1 (talk) 23:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

edit summary

This edit (which deleted a lot of material) should not have been flagged as "minor"!!! 67.119.3.248 (talk) 09:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: I've looked at a dozen or so of your edits and they seem generally reasonable content-wise, with a few minor quibbles like the edit summary issue above. The aggressive name-calling that got you blocked was completely not ok, but you seem competent enough to be able to avoid doing that in the future. I hope you can work out an agreement to stick to standard civility policy from now on, and get the block lifted. I'd certainly support an unblock conditioned on such an agreement. 67.119.3.248 (talk) 10:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

{{unblock|The other day I was in a bad mood, and cursed off some editors. I recognize that what I did was wrong and violated the civility rule and the personal attacks rule. In addition, I have violated the 3RR rule multiple times over the past few days. But the fact that I was frustrated and in a bad mood doesn't justify my behavior. I wanted to mention that editing wikipedia is one of my favorite hobies and my intention is to make wikipedia a good resource. Next time I will be civil even if I'm frustrated because I recognize that people do have good faith and want to edit wikipedia for the same or similar reasons that I do, but we have strong disagreements on how some wikipedia articles should look. I promise never to personally attack someone again (calling someone an adjective) and I will never curse anyone off. I will stay cool and award award barnstars to good editors. If I'm in a bad mood or frustrated, I will take a break from editing. I'm not asking to be unblocked immediately, but I would appreciate if the punishment wasn't so harsh.}}

Would you be willing to agree to a 1RR restriction (that's one revert on an article within 24 hours) and a zero tolerance restriction on uncivil behavior? Toddst1 (talk) 02:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For now on, I will only revert once in 24 hours and I will not conduct in any type of personal attacks, rudeness, or aggressive behavior.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 02:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Voluntary agreement to 1RR and zero tolerance on WP:CIVIL restriction. Toddst1 (talk) 02:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request handled by: Toddst1 (talk)

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Talkback

Hello, Jerzeykydd. You have new messages at Toddst1's talk page.
Message added 02:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]