User talk:Therequiembellishere/Archive 11

Stop reverting edits when you have no consensus for it. Stay away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.17.12.238 (talk) 14:02, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Republicans opposing Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016

Please don’t throw together a whole bunch of unrelated changes into one edit session. It makes it very hard to tell what you actually did. Do them either to individual items or for one particular purpose. Thanks! — Andy Anderson 20:37, 8 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyAnderson (talk • contribs)

Duplicate

Please do not add a duplicate section to documents, such as the elected officials. Theoallen1 (talk) 04:10, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Republicans Opposing Trump Notability Standard

Hi, please express your opinion on this subject on its talk page. Thanks! — Andy Anderson 05:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute Resolution Opened

stop misrepresent the biography of Pichy Torres Zamora, Torres Zamora was never retired from the speaker pro tempore office, He is up to date the current speaker protempore of the PR House. During the investigation his duties were suspended until the investigation were completed. The house investigation and the EEOC Investigation found no wrong doing. please be advise that the former employee (women) alleged that he made some insinuations. during the ethical process the employee (women) accepted that she only wanted a better job with a better pay. Lourdes Ramos is not a legal vice president, is was named as it base on the Speaker Administrative Order 2017-001. stop it now. if you have a question call the house and the secretary of the house on this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.145.239.186 (talk) 23:16, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding editing without consensus going on, section blanking. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "List of Republicans opposing Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016".The discussion is about the topic List of Republicans opposing Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Zlassiter (talk) 05:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indentation

For your consideration, Wikipedia_talk:Tutorial#Indenting — Andy Anderson 07:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox changes

I've explained my rationale, but you continue to revert with no explanation, and I see you've changed lots of other infoboxes as well in unclear ways, which seems alarming. Why do you insist on removing UC Berkeley School of Law from G. William Miller? I can't even argue against your "position" if you refuse to explain what it is. If you think that the "base" university should always be used, this is clearly crazy, as Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania is clearly separate from the University of Pennsylvania for one recent relevant example. SnowFire (talk) 16:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please engage in the process or I will be taking this up with colleagues at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.54.11 (talk) 16:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Ridiculous re-ordering"

Please stop re-ordering infobox parameters – unless you have a very good reason to do it and you want to give people who review diffs a hard time. Based on my hypothesis Visual Editor re-arranges parameters into the order they appear in TemplateData every time someone uses it to edit an infobox – or any template parameters, I presume. Take a look at this diff and you should see that it's very hard to review your changes (even with the help of improved diff gadget). Correct me if I'm wrong, but there are no rules that say what kind of order parameters should be in, but if you are re-order them just because you don't like the order Visual Editor uses, that is just disruptive because many people need to waste time over something that is meaningless.

I would also like to concur with the observations made by SnowFire above: you need to give a good reason for revert if you undo constructive edits. For example you made a partial revert my edit (adding {{nbsp}} into infobox) without any explanation. Politrukki (talk) 17:42, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Politrukki I agree. I've also looked back at the revision and there were no problems in the first place Politrukki . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.157.176.118 (talk) 19:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from User talk:Politrukki § Re-ordering

– Please reply here as I have your talk page watchlisted Politrukki (talk) 19:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because you keep re-ordering the infoboxes ridiculously. I'm not sure what it is, because several editors have done it, but flipping the order of offices and particularly bringing all the term dates to the bottom of the box is ridiculous. I imagine it's because of something like the visual editor, but I honestly don't know why this keeps happening. Therequiembellishere (talk) 21:10, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's because of Visual Editor, it happens automatically and there's nothing an individual can do about it. If an editor changes even one character in an infobox, Visual Editor re-orders all parameters. However, if only the body is edited, nothing peculiar happens. I figured this out by using inductive reasoning, so I can't tell you the reason Visual Editor was programmed like this. I understand that this might seem ridiculous to you, but ask yourself "What's the benefit of fighting against re-ordering?" If you don't like how Visual Editor behaves, you should report this to its developers.

I ask that you'll just let things evolve naturally. If you let parameters be re-ordered, nothing weird will happen until someone adds parameters, in which case they'll be re-ordered once again when someone edits an infobox with Visual Editor.

You still didn't give an explanation (other than the re-ordering explanation) for why you made this revert. I ask that you reinsert that {{nbsp}} – which in my opinion belongs between initials per MOS:INITIALS, and is already in the name in body – or you give me permission to do it. You see, Tim Kaine article is under discretionary sanctions and one of the active remedies says that consensus is required before a reverted edit can be reinstated. If you don't response to this request, I need to open a discussion on article talk page asking a non-breaking space be reinstated. If nobody weighs in, I'd need to start an RFC. Now that would be ridiculous.

Politrukki (talk) 19:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from User talk:Politrukki § Re-ordering

Honestly, that's such a small thing that I hadn't noticed it. Nothing else looked changed at all and the main thing I saw was a totally out-of-whack edit order. I don't really think it needs to be there because his name doesn't seem like it's at risk of line breaking anyway, nor do I see particular harm if someone's visual settings are set in a way that it does. But it's whatever.

I have no idea what you mean by "I ask that you'll just let things evolve naturally."Therequiembellishere (talk) 21:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's good to finally know it's the visual editor that's doing this though. Thanks for confirming that. Therequiembellishere (talk) 21:10, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"let things evolve naturally" = don't re-order parameters to your preferred order, but also one shouldn't preemptively arrange parameters to TemplateData order (i.e. Visual Editor order) if they're not doing an actual content change. Some well-intentioned fool might use automated tools to re-order all parameters in all articles, which would be pointless.
The point of having non-breaking space initials in this case is not the risk of line breaking, but having some kind of space there because it's a style issue. Most style manuals recommend using non-breaking space on-screen and thin space on hard copy.[1] Note that this source says "[s]ome manuals also recommend closing up initials that follow a first name (Thomas A.J. Castle)", but our manual of style has no such recommendation, and it simply tells us to use   or {{nbsp}} between initials unless the subject prefers different style. I will reinsert {{nbsp}} using Visual Editor since VE has been used on Tim Kaine before.
P.S. Please don't reply on my talk page; if I initiate a conversation on someone's talk page, I will have their user talk page watchlisted for at least a month. If it's something urgent, just ping me. Politrukki (talk) 09:43, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to let those stupid re-orders just go on. It's not a "natural order" at all, it's the visual editor breaking in some way. Sections should stay together, not be stupidly separated into disparate parts of the infobox for editors to hunt around to adjust and multiple editors have thanked me for righting the re-orders. I still don't think the initial spacing is nearly as big a deal as you're making it, and holding up the MOS as law rather than a general editing guideline, especially on such a minor issue. But I'll stick it back in myself to prevent the box from going back to that state. Therequiembellishere (talk) 11:27, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't prevent anyone else from using Visual Editor. Reviewing a simple diff: 2–5 seconds. Reviewing a diff after parameters have been re-ordered: 5–30 seconds. If parameters are re-ordered back and forth, you can multiply that by two. Even you said that you couldn't read what I had changed in my first edit. If you have no policy-based argument, then I must thank for disruption.
You are right that "initial spacing" is not a big deal – it's just a matter of "why not change it better?" (and let me say that outside en.wiki I would absolutely use spacing unless explicitly told otherwise), and I was using this as an example to highlight that especially when an article is under DS, it is important to provide a helpful edit summary for revert. Without such, another user is unable to make a counterchallenge or learn what they did wrong. Politrukki (talk) 12:10, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I keep on looking back Therequiembellishere THERE IS NO PROBLEM. Stop Unlinking Locations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.12.55 (talk) 16:12, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, on Melvin Laird, how is putting the office in which he was most notable for holding at the top of the infobox a "ridiculous re-ordering"? If you're going by the most recent office held, should we then put William Howard Taft's service as Chief Justice above his service as President? Connormah (talk) 05:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 2016

Hello, I'm Kendall-K1. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on James R. Clapper, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:09, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Russ Feingold. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 17 November

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Betsy DeVos page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obama & Biden

Howdy. There's no need to link to the articles President of the United States & Vice President of the United States more the once each, in the succession boxes of the office holders. GoodDay (talk) 06:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Cruz

Please note that Ted Cruz is under discretionary sanctions and you may not make more than one revert per 24 hours and you actually made two reverts ([2], [3]) in 24-hour period. I'm not going to report you for edit warring over this, but please be more careful. Proper course of action would have been (a) alerting the user of discretionary sanctions and asking them to self-revert, or (b) wait until someone else reverts to status quo, which I could have done in this case if you hadn't made your second revert. Politrukki (talk) 09:01, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Politrukki (talk) 09:02, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Therequiembellishere. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki Haley

Her pending nomination is under discussion on the talk page. Please participate in the discussion Niteshift36 (talk) 04:03, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Office titles

Can you stop imposing your own views on whether the title should be chair or chairperson instead of chairman. We go according to the official title used, not by our own preferences. See MOS:GNL ("articles should not be changed from one style to another unless there is a substantial reason to do so") and WP:GNL, referring to sections on when not to use such terminology.--Tærkast (Discuss) 16:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hiding is better than deleting?

This is getting a bit much. These people haven't even been officially nominated. For you to add categories like Secretaries of Labor etc goes beyond being premature. None of these will apply for weeks, some even longer. This notion of "hidden is better" is nonsense. There is zero reason to have a hidden category that doesn't apply to them. Hiding it in the info box was a compromise, but including them in these categories needs a better reason than "it's better". Niteshift36 (talk) 03:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bad piping (please read)

Please stop using pipes to hide away middle initials or to conceal someone having a generational suffix. WP:Piped link#When not to use discourages using pipes to make links longer than necessary, and there is no good reason to hide away middle initials or conceal how somebody has a generational suffix. You've been told before not to hide away middle initials like this. Doing so doesn't help anyone or anything, and it needlessly takes up article space. I don't know why you chose to blatantly ignore past notices, but please listen this time. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:07, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously are ignoring notices on purpose at this point for no good reason. PLEASE DESIST WITH BAD PIPING. This means DO NOT HIDE AWAY SUFFIXES OR MIDDLE NAMES/INITIALS WITH PIPES per the link I gave before. Also, per that link and WP:Manual of Style/Linking#Link specificity, it's also not helpful to pipe city articles containing state names only to include another state link afterwards. Just use the one singular link instead. It also saves article space. In other words, just use [[City, State]] instead of [[City, State|City]], [[State]]. For example, use [[Hyannisport, Massachusetts]] instead of [[Hyannisport, Massachusetts|Hyannisport]], [[Massachusetts]]. You seriously need to start listening when people ask you to change your editing habits and take the chance to improve yourself rather than continuing bad practices. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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. Lamberhurst (talk) 21:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I must add a notification that I am worried about editing behavior of this user, he seems rational but appearances are deceptive, he actually changing facts. --ThecentreCZ (talk) 17:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Use edit summaries

While I'm sure it's blindingly obvious to you what you were trying to do in your edits, the overwhelming frequency of edits with no edit summary of any kind makes it impossible for other editors to determine your goals and objectives. Please be sure to use edit summaries for all edits, if not for yourself then for the benefit of those trying to make sense of your work. Alansohn (talk) 14:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editsums

My editsum: better img
Your editsum: Apparently free use, front view, full face headshot isn't the "better image"?
Followed by: Dummy: The current photo is also more recent and of a much higher quality.

To answer your Q, no, photo preferences are mostly subjective, IMO your preferred image is inferior, he looks like an imp in that photo. p.s. Thanks for calling me "dummy", asshole. IHTS (talk) 09:52, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ihardlythinkso: - (talk page stalker), fairly certain that 'dummy' was meant to refer to a dummy edit in this case. Connormah (talk) 20:02, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have no idea how you get to "fairly certain". It wasn't 'dummy' it was 'Dummy', followed by colon, which serves to draw attention to what follows. You & he are suggesting two different topics in that editsum. A colon w/ not be appropriate for that. We have only text here to express anything. Not buying after-the-damage-is-done excuse-making, especially on a revert. Just makes it worse. Am really not interested to discuss further. Merry Xmas. IHTS (talk) 21:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Enjoy the holiday, whether it's Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, Quis separabit? 05:50, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Happy New Year. Prosperous 2017. Quis separabit? 04:41, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requiembellishere's Infobox Jihad

Well, that being said (Your comment after reverting Chuck Grassley's page), and I have read your notes elsewhere and had a look for myself, I do not particularly respect or understand whatever authority these 48 anonymous voters took to change this 'policy' and engage in an obvious exercise of secular censorship or repression, I understand that while wikipedia is somewhat of a standard, or a platform for speech and a widely used tool, it is a private enterprise all the same, and if any of us is to engage in building it up, editing it, partaking of it, then we must abide by wikipedia's rules. - however that is a god-awful system of democracy, without any separation of powers, accountability or publicity whatsoever - a vote of 48 users (held at exactly what time?), with neither accountability or identification of any of them (There may as well be 47 clones for all anybody knows) can decide just about anything they please - With 10,000s of editors of English wikipedia, how exactly do 48 voters constitute a quorum of any sort? Every one of them is self-appointed, they vote on no-one's behalf and yet they can change just about anything here, this is an absolute asinine and ridiculous system.

That said I apparently must abide by it, this is 'official' wikipedia policy, however you going about on this jihad you've been having since they took this vote is a little distracting, I would like to know what your purposes are by it, as whenever you run into opposition to your vandalistic jihadi edits you simply slap on your Commisar's hat and supply a link to the "official 'village pump' policy", which cannot under any circumstances be either debated, changed or challenged, and must be strictly adhered to, though itself it is vague, what's your purpose in doing this, and why do you suppose covering up people's professed religion (whether that equates to faith or not) is helpful on a supposed all-encompassing free encyclopedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LikkerdySplit (talk • contribs) 00:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2017

I know you're intent on making every infobox in WP conform to your whims, but please take a little more care in understanding the subject when making your changes. George W. Romney was never an Independent politician, as the link you added claimed; before 1959 he was a not yet a politician and was unaffiliated with any party. That's a significant difference. And putting three colleges in his infobox is terribly misleading. He was notable for being a self-taught, self-made man, who never stayed long at any of the colleges where he took classes and who never earned any degrees. By putting three colleges in the infobox most readers will assume he held multiple degrees, the exact opposite of what really was. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan & Morse

I recommend you study up on some time factors. If Hassan resigned at midnight, then her gubernatorial tenure would still end on January 2. Take note of other midnight changes, concerning dates like List of Presidents of Mexico & List of governors of New York. They can't both hold office at the same time, thus the reason Hassan's tenure ending date is January 2, 2017. GoodDay (talk) 05:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened a discussion at the Hassan article. It appears you're misreading your own source. GoodDay (talk) 05:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question

Hi there, this is just a matter of curiosity since I don't get involved much with categories in Syria. What was the purpose of this edit? Icebob99 (talk) 14:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Order of precedence

What do we do about this document (https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/265124.pdf)? Do we have to change the whole page? Sbb618 (talk) 18:55, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Kushner

Hi, just wanted to let you know you violated discretionary sanctions by reinstating Kushner's former political party. You must seek consensus on the talk page before you reinsert a revert. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add, I don't care but I just thought I'd let you know in case you weren't aware of the issue. There are people who will grab onto any misdeed if it suits them. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Omarosa

Regarding Omarosa - different sources have the job listed in different ways, but at brass tax it the same basic job Valerie Jarrett has now (until the 20th).

Vjmlhds (talk) 23:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 2017

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Template:Trump transition. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Vjmlhds 19:30, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Template:Trump transition.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Please....let it go. Vjmlhds 20:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Jumping the gun

With all due respect, you're being difficult again. The US Senate could easily confirm Sessions on Inauguration Day. Let's wait until that day arrives. GoodDay (talk) 04:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Barack Obama

Plz review pending requests in Talk page. Regards. 46.71.225.61 (talk) 15:14, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Sessions InfoBox

So you reverted my edit on the infobox citing Wikipedia policy. I found nothing that backs up your revert in what you cited. In the style guide for infoboxes it mentions abbreviations as acceptable. University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa is redundant. It would be like saying Northern Illinois University, DeKalb. Just a heads up I'm reverting your edit.

--Mpen320, talk. February 5, 2017, 2:48 PM CST.

Chicago Meetup at Sulzer Regional Library!

Hey there! I'm hosting a meetup at the at the Sulzer Regional Library on Saturday March 25th from 12 PM to 4:30 PM. You're welcome to come and work together with other editors on articles or other contributions, get to know other editors around Chicago, and ask any questions you might about using or contributing to Wikipedia. Food will be available, and we'll likely go out for dinner afterwards as a group. If you're interested in joining us, please RSVP at the event page here! Thanks, I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 20:23, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was sent by I JethroBT through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:23, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chairman vs Chair/Chairperson

Can you stop changing the titles to your preference. Guidelines dictate that we should use the official titles of the office, not adhere to our own point of view.--Tærkast (Discuss) 17:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cara Rodriguez

I wonder where you got the information that she's born on June 24, 1976 since I can't seem to find that information on google. Ueutyi (talk) 05:12, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your Linda McMahon Edit

First of all your edit was correct and I fully support it. I just want to state the possibility that it was not intended in a paternalistic manner. Within her WWE tenure she was referred to as Mrs. McMahon and I would not surprised if someone writing (or cutting and pasting) was just used to referring to her as Mrs. McMahon.

I could be wrong, I just know that people get weird when people play fictional versions of themselves. 73.61.8.149 (talk) 07:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bill Frist, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bill Anderson (politician). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:54, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jarrett

Do you have any source for this edit? The reason why I put a "?" was because the article itself does not speak about the subject. How do you know Jarrett was on the ballot/lost the re-election that year? Do you have additional sources you are seeing to lead you to believe that? Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cabinet-level officials

Thanks for tweaking the spaces in my citation for Case's confirmation. I generally add spaces between parameters to make it easier to read the template in editing, especially on small screens. I was editing on my smartphone, which I often do, but I was especially tired and added extra spaces to make it easier to paste the arguments in correctly. But the "Term began" date was correct, March 15. The story is dated "March 15 at 3:37 PM"; that's Washington, DC time, which was EDT = UTC - 4; so the UTC = 2017.03.15T1937, not March 16, and the confirmation had just taken place. So I'm going to change the date back to the 15th. Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 17:11, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Thnidu: Confirmation does not equal assumption of office and Coats was not sworn in yesterday. Therequiembellishere (talk) 17:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, you are right. My apologies and my thanks. --Thnidu (talk) 01:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Arthur B. Langlie

added a link pointing to Washington

Daniel J. Evans

added a link pointing to Washington

Everett Dirksen

added a link pointing to Committee on the District of Columbia

Zell Miller

added a link pointing to Georgia

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:52, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Template talk:Infobox officeholder#Religion parameter

You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Infobox officeholder#Religion parameter. Thanks Musdan77 (talk) 05:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael J. Hunter

I noticed while you re-re-ordered the infobox, you removed some info from it (the caption for the image and his service in the state legislature). I have re-added that information. MB298 (talk) 03:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANI dispute w/SlackerDelphi

You're not involved. I pinged you only as a courtesy since you had been making recent edits to the article. Activist (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Changes to Predecessor/Successor

Do you have any consensus stating that acting officials that aren't currently in office are left in the infoboxes of confirmed people like Robert Lighthizer? As far as I know, the established consensus is that only senate-confirmed/recess appointed officials are put in the infobox. If you don't have consensus, please stop unilaterally making these changes with no given authority. I appreciate your quick reply. JocularJellyfish (talk) 02:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Weld

Try this by way of explanation. Yours, Quis separabit? 18:17, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rms125a@hotmail.com: They often aren't the titles. In some of these cases, they literally ARE the title. You're just removing valid, well sourced nicknames based on your personal preference. Therequiembellishere (talk) 18:19, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Therequiembellishere -- Nope. This is a project and I am not the only editor working on it (see [4]). Quis separabit? 18:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rms125a@hotmail.com: That's a much fairer justification, and which should be what your citing and not those other irrelevant guidelines. Therequiembellishere (talk) 18:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Therequiembellishere -- This is a project and I am not the only editor working on it. @Muboshgu is at least one other. See here and here. Quis separabit? 18:26, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guess I am not really good at navigating the voluminous WP editing rules and regs. Quis separabit? 18:31, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rms125a@hotmail.com: I'm just saying that it's not the justification you were using and it sort of seems like you found it post-this discussion (which is fine) and that it should be your reasoning going forward. I'll also say that having read that, it's not a guideline I terribly agree with. What is considered a "common" nickname is subjective (do most non-Russian speaking people know Nastya is the most common nickname for Anastasia?), nor does a nickname's general commonality align at all with it's specific usage as related to the subject of the article. Just because many Thomas's go by Tom does not mean Thomas Jefferson went by Tom. Or when there are multiple common nicknames, we can identify which one they did or did not use (Christopher into Chris or Topher; Richard into Rich, Rick, Dick, Richie, Dickie, etc; Katherine into Kathy, Kate, Katie, etc). Making it clear that this is a name used by the subject and that they are likely to be referred to as such by many reliable sources serves a greater encyclopedic benefit and value to the reader than omitting it, IMO. And it is such a brief injection in the lede that I hardly see the harm in including it. Therequiembellishere (talk) 18:33, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rms125a@hotmail.com: Also the second guideline you cite (MOS:FULLNAME) also isn't really related to nicknames. You're kind of fishing here. WP:QUOTENAME is the basis you're standing on, you don't need to find anything more. Therequiembellishere (talk) 18:36, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I will find other things to do and desist from this project while you seek out some reliable guidance as to how to proceed, and we'll confer. Quis separabit? 18:37, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rms125a@hotmail.com: I don't need "reliable guidance" to discuss the merits of a guideline with you, surely. We can "confer" on its face. Therequiembellishere (talk) 18:39, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the relevant standard is from MOS:LEGALNAME, if a person has a well-known common hypocorism, used in lieu of a given name, it is not presented between quote marks following the last given name or initial, as for Tom Hopper which has just Thomas Edward Hopper.

That says pretty much verbatim what WP:QUOTENAME says and I have the same critiques for it. Therequiembellishere (talk) 00:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I missed your critiques. When the article is "Bill Weld", the MOS:LEGALNAME guideline says his name should be his legal name (William Weld) *without* the hypocorism. If the article were William Weld, there might be a reason for adding "Bill", but in this case it's just adding redundant information that gets in the way. So what's your gripe with the guideline in this case? Tarl N. (discuss) 02:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

E.g., by the way, Bill Clinton. I've seen edit wars adding and removing it. It seems to currently have stabilized without it.Tarl N. (discuss) 02:57, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editor of the Week

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your work in mainspace. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:MelanieN submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

Therequiembellishere has been editing Wikipedia for more than 10 years and has more than 90,000 edits, almost all of them to article space. He has created 80 articles, but his best contributions recently are quiet ones: tweaks to improve articles, repetitive cleanup jobs, etc. He specializes in the kind of almost-invisible work that keeps Wikipedia readable, and I think he should be recognized for this important service.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient user box}}

Thanks again for your efforts! Lepricavark (talk) 22:46, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your efforts to improve the encyclopedia. Buster Seven Talk 19:10, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stop changing the titles used

Why do you insist on changing official titles from chairman to chair or chairperson? If the office is titled as such, then that's the title to be used, regardless of your own point of view.--Tærkast (Discuss) 21:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrating 11 years of editing

Hey, Therequiembellishere. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day! Mz7 (talk) 02:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Presidents of South Korea

IMHO, Moon is the 12th President. However, it appears that South Korean sources describe his as the 19th President. I compromised on these articles by using the 'numbering term' solution, as it's apparent they're numbered by their term of office. GoodDay (talk) 18:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to change them back, then fine. But change them all back, not just the last two. Otherwise, you're throwing the South Korean presidents out of sync. GoodDay (talk) 18:21, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you ever going to go through and remove all those line breaks you said you would on party nominees? Therequiembellishere (talk) 18:28, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't edit around South Korean presidential nominee navboxes. GoodDay (talk) 18:32, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have to know I'm referring to American nominees and your tendency to make a rash decision, implement it wide, pretend that this sudden explosion constitutes a "consensus" and then leave other editors (me, in the case of senate/governor/president nominees) to clean it up and how frustrated I am that the demand for the return to the status quo isn't made by the person created the mess in the first place (you). Therequiembellishere (talk) 18:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean my 'delinking' President of the United States & Vice President of the United States? that's done because over-linking isn't necessary. GoodDay (talk) 18:41, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean the whole discussion we had about the line breaks that you just left me to fix as I continue to stumble across them 11 months on. Therequiembellishere (talk) 19:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My version, keeps the break between President/Vice President and of the United States, as it should. GoodDay (talk) 19:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Christ. That isn't even what that was about, but that's even more atrocious. Therequiembellishere (talk) 00:25, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just fixed it up at Mike Pence, putting the break after the the word "for", as it should be. GoodDay (talk) 00:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Christ, that was literally the opposite of the end result of the discussion we had a year ago, so I'm gonna rv that pettiness. Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:02, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, I don't know what you're on about. This was suppose to be about the South Korean presidents. Communicating with you, is like taking a multiple choice test. GoodDay (talk) 01:11, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm highlighting a tendency of yours to make mass changes and then shirk the responsibility of fixing them yourself after they are contested, as evidenced by the last time this sort of thing occurred. Glad (and honestly surprised) you went through and continued what clpo13 began regarding the SKorean presidents given that last. Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

You've made four reverts on Park Geun-hye in the past 24 hours. Please self-revert your most recent edit to avoid being sanctioned for edit warring. This numbering issue should be discussed on a talk page, not via edit summaries. clpo13_(talk) 18:22, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Irish related pages

I will not tell you again. Please do not edit these pages. The information was wrong that you contributed and that is NOT how we edit pages here in Ireland or Europe. DO NOT continue doing this. It is considered downright vandalism. Please stick to the U.S. edits because you are vandalising Irish pages which are no concern of yours in the least. I will not tolerate that kind of behaviour again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.54.11 (talk) 09:48, 6 June 2017 (UTC) Ben, I did not revert all edits because I found some to be constructive. Fo the edits I did not revert I want to thank you for the contribution. But most from the otheres was wrong and against all consensus we have here in Ireland. So please again refrain for your sake above all. I'm beyond the mood of having to tell you a third time.[reply]

Firstly I respond to your cooments with absolute amazement. You talk about me owning the pages. Funny! Because you are the dictator in this matter. No one is stopping you edit theses pages, but you are not editing as accord to the way we do in Republic of Ireland. You have zero consensus for your edits and you are a American who knows nothing about what happens here in Ireland. the whole point of wikipedia is that you edit in a constructive manner with correct information and with consensus, you have done neither. So again please go away...I'm sure you have enough to do with U.S. related pages as we European/Iirsh have to do here. Your edits to Irish pages will continue to be reverted. I have been speaking to fellow editors about your behaviour because you cannot be allowed continue with this rubbish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.17.23.127 (talk) 21:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems you've attracted the attention of a block-evading user, Therequiembellishere - see here for more. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:17, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2017

Hello, I'm MB298. I noticed that you recently removed content from Michael J. Hunter without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. MB298 (talk) 23:35, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion for Prime Minister of Iraq

An article that you have been involved in editing—Prime Minister of Iraq—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. - TheMagnificentist 17:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. X4n6 (talk) 04:01, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shahid Khaqan Abbasi

Hi, I am curious why would you trim down the infobox and remove the two major posts that the subject had held in 2008? --Saqib (talk) 17:30, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please stop adding unsourced information in the subjected bio. From where does this "Habib Public School" information comes? --Saqib (talk) 17:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kris Kobach

I'll admit I'm confused - why would you remove the town of current residence from the infobox, given that the same information exists later in the article? Morty C-137 (talk) 19:34, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding the article Hope Hicks.

Are you aware that Hope Hicks is not the acting communications director and that she's interiming that position? There's a difference between interim and acting. --M.W.B.A.B. 15:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at President of Singapore. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:47, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removing offices

Please stop removing offices when you "re-order" infoboxes, especially service in state legislatures. There is absolutely no reason for them not to be in the infobox, especially when it reveals information that is presentable at a quick glance instead of having to read through text. MB298 (talk) 20:57, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

President's nickname

Hi Therequiembellishere. I am not sure how strongly you feel about the new Angolan president's nickname, but it is not a nickname in the noramal sense — very few people use it to address him; it is more a popular monniker, probably fashioned on his predecessor's popular "Zedú" (José Eduardo). Further, as it is, it might need a note on ponounciation, seeing that it is actually pronounced in English, "Jay-Low" (yes, that's right, exactly as J Lo). I am also dropping a note on the talk page. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 14:59, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not badgering. I just thought the natural reaction would be to acknowledge my good faith note alerting you, which would have taken you 3 seconds or a bit longer if you said someting, even if just to indicate as you did now that you have no opinion, that you were okay one way or another. I minimise the potential for conflict, so I take extra care with edits by long-term editors on the assumption that they know what they are doing, in which case I engage in dialogue, except if they are known troublemakers, POV editors or any such. But thanks for your time. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 16:31, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don J. Wright

Wright is Acting Assistant Secretary. It is not clear whether he has held an appointment requiring Senate confirmation. Therefore, it's not clear that he's in the line of presidential succession. As I said in the edit summary preceding yours, that line in the box should remain blank until his eligibility can be verified. JTRH (talk) 23:19, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rainer Weiss, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cosmic background (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Therequiembellishere. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Current members of the United States House of Representatives, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Air University (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Al Lawson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Midway, Florida (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:46, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Michael Wynne, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Air University (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:36, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018

Hello, I'm TonyTheTiger. I noticed that you recently removed content from Byron Brown without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:11, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I notice the same thing. Please use edit summaries in the future, thanks.

Jusdafax (talk) 01:02, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes

Hello, Therequiembellishere. I came here to informally warn you to throttle back your revert-warring on the |education= and |alma mater= fields in IBs, but I discovered while looking up supporting policies and diffs that I may owe you an apology. Ever since SMcCandlish made it explicitly clear in the documentation a few months ago here that the a/m field shouldn't be used in "addition to" the education field, I shouldn't have been using both at the same time. I just learned about this and I won't continue using both in the same infoboxes, so you have my apologies for our conflicting edits on that point.

As for your insertion of font-reducing templates and mark-up code ("small") into infobox fields, that is explicitly no longer allowed after this decision (discussed here), and I will still be removing them (and reporting the disruption if they are reverted back in). I will likewise still be removing degrees from IB fields when they do not already exist in the body of the article with a valid source citation. If you have any further concerns about these, just let me know. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 16:30, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Therequiembellishere: Not to put too fine a point on it, but this usage of small is precluded by MOS:FONTSIZE last paragraph, not by the discussion linked. This is an accessibility issue, and Wikipedia takes accessibility seriously. We are gradually removing the smalls and I would ask that you help with that effort rather than increasing it. Thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding {{small}} to Infoboxes. Per MOS:ACCESS#Text / MOS:FONTSIZE: "Avoid using smaller font sizes in elements that already use a smaller font size, such as infoboxes, navboxes and reference sections." – Muboshgu (talk) 16:22, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Friendly reminder to please stop adding {{small}} to infoboxes, like you did in this edit. And also remember WP:CRYSTAL regarding the Oklahoma gubernatorial election, 2018. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:13, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Thomas E. Watson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Education infoboxes, again

Hello Therequiembellishere,

We've been at this before, and I'm a little alarmed at the rate you're changing infoboxes, because I can't go through all of your changes. However, you have been very persistent in some strange changes, like changing the more-precise [[UC Berkeley School of Law]] to [[University of California, Berkeley]] ([[Bachelor of Laws|LLB]]). This is inserting a useless extra blue link (nobody cares about the general Bachelor of Science, Bachelor of Laws, etc. articles) and also less helpful. Additionally, there's absolutely no harm in linking to redirects, and is simpler on wikitext inspection; you don't need to change any link to [[U.S. Coast Guard Academy]] to [[United States Coast Guard Academy|U.S. Coast Guard Academy]]. If anything, it's actually discouraged as useless noise in edits that make it harder to figure out what the actual change is, and is definitely discouraged for mass edits. If you have a reason behind these changes, it'd be reasonable to discuss, but you keep on just plowing through and not discussing on talk pages or the like. SnowFire (talk) 06:52, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

June 2018

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. You seriously need to start using edit summaries regularly, and blatantly ignoring past requests to do so on purpose is a bad choice. Including edit summaries helps give people a better sense of what you're trying to do. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:06, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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. Davey2116 (talk) 01:16, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, the discussion, such as it was, has been archived. It doesn't look like you've been on since the above was posted, so I figure a link would be worthwhile:[5]

Tarl N. (discuss) 02:53, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tarl N.:

Bachelor of Arts initials B.A. vs A.B.

I have noticed that in some articles, you have incorrectly switched A.B. to B.A. As given in Bachelor of Arts A.B. or AB is the initials for Artium Baccalaureus, the Latin term for Bachelor of Arts. These initials are officially used by a number of institutions and if you see A.B. or AB used in an article, you should leave it that way, unless you find a reliable source that indicates to the contrary. William H. Webster's official FJC Bio entry https://www.fjc.gov/node/1389516 indicates that the proper initials are AB, which change I will now execute. In 'the future, please do not swap the initials unless you have a reliable source indicating that is the correct usage. Safiel (talk) 18:21, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note I removed some incorrect formatting in an older comment on this page which was causing unwanted underlining to appear later in the page. Safiel (talk) 18:21, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Senior Judge service in infoboxes

I really don't know why you remove Senior Judge service from infoboxes, but please stop doing it. It has long been the community consensus in WikiProject United States courts and judges that Senior Judge service should be included in the infobox. A normal Wikipedia user should be able to determine by looking at the infobox that a Judge is continuing to render service in senior status or rendered service in senior status. Safiel (talk) 20:07, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removal on Imran Khan

You keep removing sourced names of Khan's children from infobox citing WP:BLPNAMES but I am afraid you have a misunderstanding about the policy. It allows the names if they are sourced, which are in this case. Here is the concerning policy which allows sourced inclusion highlighted in bold The names of any immediate, former, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, .....However, names of family members who are not also notable public figures must be removed from an article if they are not properly sourced. So, you see when it says they may be part of an article, the stress is if they are reliably sourced and when it says non-notables must be removed, the stress is if they are not properly sourced. In this case those names are properly sourced and warrant inclusion. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:12, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BLPN notice

Your editing activity, particularly some of your most recent edits and how they relate to BLPs and a host of other issues has been brought to the attention of the greater community at the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard. You're welcome to reply if you wish. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 04:29, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ronan Farrow

I would like to reach an agreement in regards to our edits on Ronan Farrow's page since I think we've fallen into edit warring. I was under the impression that my edits were correct as they follow the guideline I linked to ((Template:Infobox person. Could you please direct me towards the guideline to support your edits? Simple stating the one I followed is outdated is not satisfactory. Thank you. (Also, why pluck seven months out of nowhere?) —Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 19:14, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brian McClendon

Your edits to my page had two errors

- My wife's first name is "Beth Ellyn" (two words, first name, no middle name).

- Much as it would benefit me to say I was born in Lawrence, Kansas, it is not true. I moved there in early childhood.

Please revert those two changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:48F8:9004:12FB:1462:F6FD:1412:5511 (talk) 12:27, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Honorable title

Hi, please, visit this talk page to share your thoughts and help reach an understanding on your edit here. Caballero/Historiador^⎌ 07:50, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 25

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

Caucuses of the United States Congress (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Bill Foster, Chris Stewart, Bill Johnson, Christopher Smith, Austin Scott and Don Bacon

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Neguse

Hit "Enter" before typing in my reason for reverting. Why take info out of the infobox? – Muboshgu (talk) 04:03, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of freshman class members of the 116th United States Congress, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Phoenix (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Flake

Hi. Not templating. Just suggest you revert your edit stating that Kyrsten Sinema has officially been elected. Of course she will win. But, as an encyclopedia, we should wait for official conformation -- not a projection. I suggest a self-rvt. O3000 (talk) 01:25, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We go by the AP's call for every election. The AP has called. Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:28, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An encyclopedia goes by the official delegated to each state to make such a pronouncement. She is not officially -elect, as you have added. O3000 (talk) 01:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then I suggest you go through and remove elect from the other 85-odd "candidates" because none of them have been certified and, again, we literally always go by the AP's call. McSally has conceded as well. I don't mean to be hostile, but this is a nit-picked "suggestion" only because the race was close and fully ignores the precedent we have set for all past US elections. Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:35, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rather sad that an encyclopedia would use projections instead of certifications. WP:NOHURRY. O3000 (talk) 01:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to try and explain how the AP is a bona fide industry standard acknowledged across the whole spectrum but if you want to try and remove the "elect" from each newly elected member, feel free. Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The AP is clearly RS and I respect what they print. But, they said "projected". You omitted the word "projected". As RS as they are -- they do not have an official role in the election process under any federal or state law or constitutional process. And note that I was only one editor that reverted this addition. Another is a sysop and former arb. O3000 (talk) 01:48, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

In a recent edit, your edit summary said "Can this be erased from the history? I don't know how to do that."

For future use, note Wikipedia:Oversight/FAQ, which includes the relevant email address.

I have suppressed the information.--S Philbrick (Talk) 23:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

US president pro tempore

Howdy. Indeed (via Republican majority) it's quite likely that in January 2019, the US Senate will elect Grassley as president pro tempore. However the Senate doesn't have to chose him. So we wait until & if it does, January 2019. GoodDay (talk) 04:38, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Even the sources say he was nominated by the Republicans for the post & the US Senate will vote on the office occupant, on January 3, 2019. GoodDay (talk) 04:43, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Therequiembellishere. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

3RR on Mitt Romney

I noticed that you've breached 3RR yet again: 1, 2, 3, 4. This is a friendly reminder that it is against Wiki policy to edit-war. Davey2116 (talk) 06:43, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Especially in an attempt to get your way in a matter of style which, according to your own claim, is left to editor discretion. Davey2116 (talk) 06:43, 27 November 2018 (UTC))[reply]

No, I haven't said it's up to editor discretion, but that you are falsely using a guideline as a policy and that you so ardently push for useless breaks, spaces and [[Lieutenant Governor of]] [[State]] as good formatting and information delineation while contradicting the style used across vast majority of articles by hundreds editors and that most casual readers encounter for over a decade all on your own is astounding to me. Therequiembellishere (talk) 06:48, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You effectively have, by deciding that it's okay for you to ignore the clear SBS guidelines. And you have not addressed the main issue, which is your flagrant disregard for Wiki's edit-warring protections. Davey2116 (talk) 06:59, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit filter false postiive

Sorry about that!! An edit filter was malfunctioning. I have fixed it. Your edit should go through now. Apologies! — MusikAnimal ^talk 05:20, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

116th US Congress

When I reverted a bunch of edits, I accidentally restored Pelosi as speaker. It's now all corrected, as she, Grassley & Leahy are deleted again. GoodDay (talk) 21:47, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick M. Shanahan

Your well-intentioned recent contribution to Patrick M. Shanahan appears to include a couple of mistakes. Per the Department of Defense biography for Shanahan he is the 33rd DepSecDef, not the 32nd. Robert O. Work was the 32nd DepSecDef. Also, the assertion of a birth location is not substantiated by any reference or citation. I have corrected those two items.

— Archer1234 (talk) 10:56, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Please uses these for your contributions, especially when they're major changes, and stop purposefully ignoring requests to implement them. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 15:39, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

December 2018

Hello. Your recent edit to List of Juilliard School people appears to have added the name of a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person, organization or product added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. Thank you. Gab4gab (talk) 13:51, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Party leaders of the United States House of Representatives

Howdy, you'll note in the infobox of Party leaders of the United States House of Representatives, that the Speaker isn't listed. GoodDay (talk) 17:21, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

American Politics editing

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 recently 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 any 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.

Lord Roem ~ (talk) 21:53, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 6

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

Hank Johnson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Joe Courtney

John Faso (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Antonio Delgado

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mark Amodei, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page University of the Pacific (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of United States House of Representatives committees, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Joe Courtney and Mike Quigley (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Aja (drag queen), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Puerto Rican (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:50, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your help!

Thanks for working alongside me in bringing the House committee pages up to date! It certainly is a lot of work in the first couple months of the year. Nevermore27 (talk) 08:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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. Davey2116 (talk) 23:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

February 2019

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring, as you did at William Barr. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:44, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay:, @Davey2116:. I don't have the energy at the moment to go over how ridiculous I find most of Davey2116's edits but, ugh, yeah that User:It tolls not for thee obviously isn't me because I (for one), wouldn't make a pun name that makes fun of my own username (though was admittedly from when I was an emo teen) and the editing style is nothing like mine. I don't use "& ndash;", I use "–"; I use full dates in cites and mdy in American articles, not stuff like "Feb 14" or "10 February", and I definitely wouldn't add some bullshit like "better known as Bill". To be honest, I genuinely wouldn't be surprised if it was Davey2116 trying to frame me or whatever. But, yeah, not how I edit, not how I type-talk (in the unblock request; which, also, I would just do here on my page if I gave a damn and not make a stupid sock account because, what the fuck, that doesn't make any goddamn sense). So. Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My assumption is that the phony sock is neither of you. But rather some passer-by, likely hoping to create fog over both of you. GoodDay (talk) 01:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GoodDay, it’s someone but CheckUser doesn’t help figure out who it is. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:45, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Frustrating. GoodDay (talk) 01:46, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The sock account is not me, and I don't doubt that it's not Therequiembellishere either. (That Therequiembellishere says he genuinely wouldn't be surprised if it was Davey2116 trying to frame me or whatever is a bit unsettling.) Davey2116 (talk) 01:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2116 and GoodDay: who it really is doesn’t really matter. They’re blocked now and no obvious sleepers. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 02:28, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ See y'all later then. Therequiembellishere (talk) 02:33, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SMALLFONT

Just a heads up re this edit. See MOS:SMALLFONT about use of {{small}} in infoboxes. It's an accessibility issue. I've corrected it.[6] ―Mandruss ☎ 01:02, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mandel & Hughes

FWIW, Mandel resumed his powers & duties as governor of Maryland on January 15, 1979 (two days before leaving office) & therefore is Hughes' predecessor. GoodDay (talk) 01:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Using "small" in infboxes

Avoid using smaller font sizes in elements that already use a smaller font size, such as infoboxes, navboxes and reference sections. MOS:ACCESS#Text - FlightTime (open channel) 17:38, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility#Font_size - FlightTime (open channel) 17:39, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, please go back and fix all those type of changes. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:44, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 2019

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Nick Boles; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
Please discuss the matter on the talk page or with the other editor before making any further reverts to the article. ST47 (talk) 00:56, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on Layla Moran talk page

There is a rather spirited discussion currently ongoing at Talk:Layla Moran#Domestic Violence. Seeing as you are an experienced editor that recently edited the page, I would appreciate if you could chime in with your view, in the interests of finding a consensus one way or the other. Domeditrix (talk) 09:49, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation of Buttigieg

The pronunciation is /ˈbʊdədʒɪdʒ/ BUU-dəh-jij. Please watch and listen to this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NT36PvjxbRA. I precisely pronounced /ˈbʊdədʒɪdʒ/, the last vowel being /ɪ/ as in "sit" and NOT /ʌ/ as in "judge". I may use a clip of Buttigieg saying it himself, but it's not "my own work". Israell (talk) 22:05, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited the lead and used that clip of Buttigieg saying it himself. Israell (talk) 22:39, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Linda McMahon: Difference between revisions

On your revision Revision as of 20:08, 13 April 2019 (That means literally nothing.)
I have been watching and I did not want to tell the IP'er that some times the govt pages are slower in updated their web~sites ~ not to tell you anything and please don't take personally because I do respect the editing you done in the past ~(: ~ I would have told the IP'er in the summary about the govt websites. If they do it again I will take of it for you if you like , just let me know ~ mitch 22:30, 13 April 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitchellhobbs (talk • contribs)

Disambiguation link notification for June 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Caucuses of the United States Congress, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chris Pappas (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:25, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pragya

the stuff you removed are from infobox criminal. before she won the election. that was the only reason for her notability. now that she is an MP, I dont think we have to remove all that info that added to her notability in the first case. we need to find a way to present both in the infobox. --DBig Xrayᗙ 06:51, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PR is not in the US; it is an unincorporated territory "of" the US

PR is not in the US; it is an unincorporated territory "of" the US. Consensus, over the years, has been to not include U.S. afer places in Puerto Rico. For example here and here: San Juan, Puerto Rico should not be San Juan, Puerto Rico, U.S. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 21:32, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed you did it again. Have you had a chance to read this note here? Since you haven't responded, I assume you never saw this. Talk to me. What is the issue with adding "U.S." to places in P.R. when it's been said that it is not a part of the U.S.? See Talk:Puerto Ricans in the United States#Requested move 8 August 2019, see Commonwealth (U.S. insular area) Puerto Rico is not a part of the US. It is instead a US territory which is legally not part of the United States but rather a separate domain under the control of the US congress. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 00:32, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of richest American politicians, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Blackwater (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:24, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Buttigieg

Did you see the comment I left for you five days ago on the Talk Page regarding your removal of his mother from the infobox? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ninth European parliament

Please fix the article, it a mess due to your recent edits.Sredina (talk) 14:16, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Helga Schmid, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page European (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:09, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Von der Leyen Commission

If you deleted a candidate, then change other parts of the article as well so it will be accurate.Sredina (talk) 16:59, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are many moving parts, that's why it's a collaborative editing effort. Thank you for understanding Wikipedia. Therequiembellishere (talk) 17:55, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is that supposed to mean? If you do a change, do it properly. Im sick of you doing everything just halfway.Sredina (talk) 19:13, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Me: *Edits a series of crappy code and syntax errors up and down pages and updates information across all relevant pages for several hours with competing priorities, missing literally two already out-of-date numbers* You: (brattily) "Im sick of you doing everything just halfway!!!!!" You can do it yourself if you see an easily rectifiable edit I missed, that's literally the point of Wikipedia. The last fucking time you shot a snotty message on my page literally just minutes after me making an edit and then immediately going back to fix the coding error was after I had already fixed it. Therequiembellishere (talk) 19:26, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ninth European Parliament

You reverted my edit and ruined the table with that, so fix it ASAP and next time check what your changes do to the article. I don't even know how it is possible to ruin the table like tha... Also, it is highly unlikely that government would change in Croatia, especially since presidential election will be held in december and Croatia starts with the presidency of the Council in only 4 months. Another things is Gualtieri did not start the term as Committee chairman on the 1 July 2019, since the term of the parliament started on the 2 July 2019, and he was elected later, so fix that as well, also..is it even relevant to put date there? Committee chairs were elected on different dates, and by adding dates for one committe, I think then it should be done for all of them (or for none of them). Same goes for his vice-presidency of the S&D group. If you wont fix that in a reasonable amount of time i will revert the changes since they are worng. Sredina (talk) 16:25, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 US Banknote Contest

US Banknote Contest

November-December 2019

There are an estimated 30,000 different varieties of United States banknotes, yet only a fraction of these are represented on Wikimedia Commons in the form of 2D scans. Additionally, Colonial America, the Confederate States, the Republic of Texas, multiple states and territories, communities, and private companies have issued banknotes that are in the public domain today but are absent from Commons.

In the months of November and December, WikiProject Numismatics will be running a cross-wiki upload-a-thon, the 2019 US Banknote Contest. The goal of the contest is to increase the number of US banknote images available to content creators on all Wikimedia projects. Participants will claim points for uploading and importing 2D scans of US banknotes, and at the end of the contest all will receive awards. Whether you want to claim the Gold Wiki or you just want to have fun, all are invited to participate.

If you do not want to receive invitations to future US Banknote Contests, follow the instructions here

Sent by ZLEA at 23:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Gwen Collins-Greenup

Hello, Therequiembellishere. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Gwen Collins-Greenup".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:09, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 2019

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary.

I noticed your recent copy fixes to Elissa Silverman and Mary Cheh. I was prompted (particularly for Silverman, where your edits substantially reduced the article length) to check them to make sure they were good faith, and I suspect several other edits probably were as well. While upon inspection they were clearly fine, it would have saved me and whoever else checked time and allowed us to edit more efficiently if you had included a summary. Please consider doing so more regularly in the future. Thank you, Sdkb (talk) 01:29, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Pamela S. Karlan. Thank you. - Mr X 🖋 21:05, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions on Jeff Van Drew

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.

DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Dreier

A member of Congress is not an executive position either, but that gets included in the infobox. Why not the chairmanship of a major American company? Mediaexpert3 (talk) 07:29, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's worth explaining why being a member of Congress goes in an infobox, but the chair of a board is a transient, external position. The staff executive (President, CEO, Executive/Managing Director) is what would be included. Therequiembellishere (talk) 12:20, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the company. The Tribune chairman plays a large role in managing the company with the CEO. It's nearly a full-time position, not a monthly meeting type of situation. Mediaexpert3 (talk) 22:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

Hello, I've finished my self-imposed lunch break and taken a little time to process our back-and-forth at Marie Newman. I don't consider myself the edit-warring type, and I try to avoid contentious exchanges. I have no interest in stirring up drama or getting anyone in trouble.

1. While I am rarely personally offended by profanity, I did find this edit summary to be uncalled for on many levels. Instead of commenting on policy or participating in a discussion with me, you chose to erroneously question my experience and use some unsavory language – I assume to make a point. I do believe that this was uncivil, but I will hold off on commenting further until I hear an explanation from you on your though process.

2. With that out of the way, I would like to offer my apologies for engaging in an edit way and including my own flippant or curt edit summaries. I am fully aware that this is a two-way street, and I could've handled our exchange far better. I will look to avoid similar situations in the future.

3. Finally, it is not lost on my that many are feeling stressed or angry because of this mess we find ourselves in. Personally, the rest of my semester has been cancelled and I'm back to living with my parents – something I thought was behind me. I don't have my car, I left my winter jacket in another state, and I can't even leave the house for coffee. I won't make any assumptions as to how you're feeling, but I should've acted more appropriately given the nature of the moment. At best, this period can provide more time to edit, which usually calms me down and centers me. It is also understandable that people trapped inside are more irritable than usual.

I would like very much to discuss the issue of Education and Alma Mater in infoboxes with you in a calm manner, as to hopefully find a compromise. Sorry again. KidAd (talk) 20:02, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 2020

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Bruce Riedel, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 04:35, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is a normal practice to open a talk page discussion when an edit is reverted. Where does the article say he is a "politician" and a "democrat" at that? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The politician/person difference is only within the edit screen, and Riedel has exclusively served as a political staff appointee and campaign advisor to Democrats. Therequiembellishere (talk) 04:55, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps so. But it is not in the article and not sourced. Secondly, serving on campaign staff doesn't make one a "politician". That needs a source as well. There should be no reason to change the infobox to politician, unless he is one. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 05:12, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Yes! I was hoping someone would have the right dates for United States House Committee on Oversight and Reform http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=United_States_House_Committee_on_Oversight_and_Reform&curid=1732139&diff=948403574&oldid=948393235.

I sorta figured the "previously" would get attention of a knowledgeable editor :) Come to think of it, Senator Clinton had to the same thing when assuming Secretary of State.

When you have a chance, could you put in a <ref name="existingsource2020" /> to whichever existing source has the information?

Lent (talk) 22:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit on Abigail Spanberger

Hey there, I noticed you removed GISMA/Purdue from Spanberger's infobox. Do you have a citation to back up your assertion that it's not a joint diploma-granting program between GISMA/Purdue as Vote Smart states? I found one from Purdue, stating, "While other stateside schools have weekend and summer business programs, GISMA's first class graduated from the first full-time, American-style MBA program in Europe." Because class is stressed, it seems to imply the program is a joint diploma-granting setup. I'd love to see a reference that counteracts what Vote Smart stimulates so we can reference it. Thank you, Semper et Deinceps, Nunquam Retro (talk) 21:19, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware that you've got vandalism at the top of your talk page from 2017? I found it odd, but also kind of funny given how long it's been up there for. Semper et Deinceps, Nunquam Retro (talk) 21:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please use edit summaries regularly

I know I've asked this of you before and that you blatantly disregarded it, but I'm doing so again anyway because it's still important; please do your best to USE EDIT SUMMARIES FOR YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS as much as possible. Even though it's painfully obvious at this point that you don't care how the lack of them can raise eyebrows (which is further proven by how you never seem to have addressed previous requests from myself or others to regularly use them), you really should implement them far more frequently. Without those, people can get suspicious of what your intentions are when editing. That particularly goes for big changes. Minor adjustments should also have edit summaries, even if it's only a brief description of what you did. While I do realize there are times you've used these (which is better than not at all), the instances you have quite frankly isn't nearly often enough. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained deletion

Hello, I figured before reverting this edit. I thought I'd ask you about it first. Why? Bangabandhu (talk) 16:44, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox isn't a repository for every job on a person's resume. There isn't any substantive information being included but a non-notable office and the years served, which is better included in the article's prose as "Norton served as chair of the New York City Commission on Human Rights fro 1970 to 1977" than cluttering the box. ::Therequiembellishere (talk) 16:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think Chair of the New York City Commission on Human Rights is non-notable? Bangabandhu (talk) 23:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it doesn't have an article and isn't mentioned anywhere else is a pretty clear standard we use here. Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fourteen Years on Wikipedia!

Hey, Therequiembellishere. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 22:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign endorsements, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sonal Shah (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. Thanks! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign endorsements, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Julián Castro (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:30, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stop purging host country leaders from ambasadors' infoboxes.

Ambassadors serve both the sending country's leaders and the host country's - they serve as the representatives of government A (e.g. Donald Trump) before government B (e.g. Reuven Rivlin and Benjamin Netanyahu). Stop removing non-POTUS leaders from US ambasaadorial infoboxes. Glide08 (talk) 19:45, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, they don't. You fundamentally misunderstand what an ambassador is. Therequiembellishere (talk) 19:51, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seek a consensus 'next' time, please?

Howdy. I realise that collaboration isn't something you usually seek. But, honestly, you could have sought a consensus for the major changes you made at the US major party tickets history articles. GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Ralph Gants

On 16 September 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Ralph Gants, 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 01:36, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"No"

Please use edit summaries that are more meaningful than just the word "no". The edit summary should explain the rationale for the edit. "No" is meaningless. Thanks. Anastrophe (talk) 23:56, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove the middle name

It wasn't my decision, but we have to respect it anyway: Talk:Amy_Coney_Barrett#Inclusion_of_birth_date_and_middle_name.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:37, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Suzanne Jackson (artist), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Saint Louis.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Rubin

Hi there, my name is Bill and I'm a longtime Wikipedian (since '06) and and I use this account for occasional COI editing, by which I mean specifically: I'll propose changes, but never edit client articles directly. (I did notice your "no ads" userbox, and I hope I can reassure you that my intention is not to turn any article into a puff piece.) Recently I started working with former U.S. Treasury Sec. Robert Rubin, and have posted a couple of requests on his biographical talk page and tried to find some editors interested to review the changes, without much luck. Nonetheless, I believe the article has significant issues. For example, I think it's a fairly big oversight that it does not mention his role in passing the 1993 Deficit Reduction Act.

Whether you know it or not, you are among the most active contributors on the page over time, so I am interested to see if you are willing to help solve issues that I'd like to raise on the article. If so, you could start with my request on the Rubin talk page about the aforementioned 1993 Deficit Reduction Act (here). If you are not, however, that's entirely fine, I just hope you'll let me know if that's the case. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 21:17, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bobby Dyer (politician), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Centerville, Virginia.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Before adding successor= parameter in politicians pages, see discussion about successor parameter at Template_talk:Infobox_officeholder#RfC:_Interim_use_of_successor=\. This parameter should not be added until the actual succession takes place. Feel free to contribute to the discussion if youEccekevin (talk) 21:13, 16 November 2020 (UTC) disagree.[reply]

The "We Truly Know What a Mayor Is" Barnstar

	The "We Truly Know What a Mayor Is" Barnstar
	Thanks for your good work :) Marquardtika (talk) 16:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Krebs

I have created a conversation about Chris Krebs and his potential predecessor. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Chris_Krebs Yousef Raz (talk) 01:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring Yousef Raz (talk) 03:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leave successor parameter in officeholder Infobox blank until succession takes place

See guidelines at Template:Infobox_officeholder and discussion about successor parameter at Template_talk:Infobox_officeholder#RfC:_Interim_use_of_successor. Eccekevin (talk) 00:21, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]