Misplaced Pages

Trump's picture

The picture you insist on using is unique in many ways: little margin, scruffy, little torso, low-res, not-smiling picture. High-res picture, same angle as Carson's, smiling as everyone else picture is more representative.Pantenon7 (talk) 15:31, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

@Pantenon7: The photo you are using is a very poor photograph for portrait purposes. Why? Because it is shot from below angling up. You do not get a head-on view of Mr. Trump's face. You see more below his face, more torso, less detail. Portraits have nothing to do with smiling. Obama's first term portrait was a neutral face, not smiling. The purpose of the portrait is to display the individual in the most neutral, representative, and if you will 'flattering' (avoiding an unappealing non-representative photograph). The photo you wish to use was once used when others weren't available. The photo you removed was discussed and agreed upon on the Trump main article, and using it consistently is good.   Spartan7W §   16:31, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

The picture you are pushing is not a portrait photo. It was taken in a press conference. The mic is still there. Highly unprofessional. New one is the same angle as Carson's. Trump isn't even "serious" here, he's frowning - that's highly unflattering, it stands out among smiling politicians as the one frowning.Pantenon7 (talk) 18:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Your singular purpose here is to change one picture. The picture you keep trying to replace was agreed upon by editors. The Carson image is of portrait quality because of its composition. Your preferred photo is inferior due to its angle, because it doesn't show his face well. A smile is not a criterion to establish the quality of an image. You can hardly argue he is smiling. This photo shows his entire face, head-on, clearly, showing his hair, a common and neutral expression. It is not obscured by a poor angle, shadows, distance, etc.   Spartan7W §   21:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Timeline

Hey Spartan. Could you join the discussion at Talk:Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016#Timeline? Right now people agree that the timeline is too cluttered. Thanks. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 18:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Ulysses Grant

You are correct that Grant's middle name was not Simpson, but I think you are getting a bit confused between Grant and Truman. Grant's middle name was "Ulysses" (born "Hiram Ulysses"), but it was mistakenly given for his nomination to West Point as "Ulysses S. Grant" and he adopted the name. By contrast, the "S" in Harry Truman's name did not stand for anything and was chosen to honor both his grandfathers. Cheers, Magidin (talk) 02:07, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

@Magidin:I was referencing common name, not given name. He effectively never used Hiram during his professional life, and thus Ulysses became his de facto first name, thus giving him no common middle name, aside from an initial for aural pleasure.   Spartan7W §   02:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. Regards, Magidin (talk) 05:39, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 17 February

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 List of Governors of Utah page, your edit caused a missing references list (help | help with group references). (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) 00:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Answer

In answer to your insulting question, yes, I can do math. I have responded to the rest of your objections here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. 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 "Talk:Jaffna Airport#Request for Comment". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --obi2canibe 12:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Democratic Party presidential primaries, 1980, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgia. 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) 10:42, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Primaries sandbox

Hi, Spartan7W! I moved the Republican primaries sandbox into your userspace: User:Spartan7W/Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016/sandbox. Sandboxes and the like should generally stay out of mainspace, I think. Not a big deal, probably just better this way. Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:28, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

FYI on "edit semi-protected"

It's not a protection template or protection request. It was an edit request to remove one of the duplicate contentstyle params for the sidebar. I've went ahead and made the change. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 16:42, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I misread. I was undoing potential vandalism by the nature of his language. Sorry.   Spartan7W §   16:43, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah that's fine, no problem! I agree, that IP should clean up its language. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 16:44, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Please see here for commenting

Talk:2016_Orlando_nightclub_shooting#Label_as_mass_shooting_or_terrorist_attack.3F Thanks! Mootros (talk) 18:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Presidential Templates

Hello,

I saw your edit that there is a special format for U.S. president sidebars. I have a few ideas about how they can be improved- where would the appropriate place to discuss this be? The Obama template, or is there some other place for a general discussion of all U.S. president sidebars? Thanks, Michelangelo1992 (talk) 19:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@Michelangelo1992: Just run them by me here, I'm the only one who really actively patrols them.   Spartan7W §   23:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! I posted them on the talk page for the Obama template but I will also put my suggestions here. Most of them are aesthetic and I think that they make the template easier to read.

1. Place political positions and electoral history together, at the top of the template. These are two of the most important things to know about a politician, so the top seems like a good place for them.

2. Organize positions held in reverse chronological order. Presidency at the top, then senator, then state senator. This gives the Presidency a more prominent role in the template and allows us to see a chronology. Add links to tenure and election for those positions.

3. Add links to the democratic primaries including 2012, as they are an important contest involving Obama's electoral history. (Compare their places on Hillary Clinton's and Donald Trump's templates). Move the existing link for the 2008 primaries to the appropriate place chronologically.

4. Move personal life, etc to the bottom, along with other miscellaneous articles such as books and awards.

If you don't think they'd be good ideas, that's fine- I was just trying to make his template match those for Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, which I edited a few days ago. Thanks! Michelangelo1992 (talk) 23:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@Michelangelo1992:I like some of these. To start with, I think inclusion of the primaries is excessive information for Clinton, Bernie, and Trump which is covered by links to the election as a whole and campaign articles. I'll go about doing those in the near future. With that in mind, Obama's 2012 primary doesn't belong by virtue of that logic. I think a contested primary isn't needed directly in the series box, but rather by transitive property since overall election AND campaign are both included. The 2012 primary was literally of such little note it by no means belongs.

I think the ordering depends on the individual. If Clinton is elected, the number of articles of her pre-presidential (presumed) life would take up an excessive amount of space and I would collapse them to save space and emphasize Presidency. I like having early life atop to have a chronological between early life, most significant prior office (or for Trump, if elected, the collapsed list of businesses, etc.), then Presidency, followed by post-presidency activity. If you look at the series box for Theodore Roosevelt, it well illustrates how the top-down chronology is best, because he did so much after leaving office, including running again and going on the expeditions, that placing early life there would be out of order. If you put early life with post-presidential info, I think it confuses the organizational and chronological value of the series box, which incidentally is one of its best arguments for exisiting alongside the template at the bottom of the page.

I think that by simplifying the Trump, Sanders, and Clinton boxes, which have been subject to the most unfiltered change, we can obtain a better uniformity. That said, again, the Presidential series box (along with other presiding officers: VP, Speaker) is of slightly different nature because it also represents the office of the Presidency (or other) rather than just simply the man/woman.   Spartan7W §   23:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@Spartan7W: Thank you for your comments! I will take a look at the Teddy Roosevelt template and I will reply again tomorrow. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 00:46, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@Spartan7W: I made some changes to the template in the sandbox- what do you think? Thanks! Michelangelo1992 (talk) 14:42, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@Spartan7W: Ok, I agree that removing the bolded section is a good idea since there are no articles beneath it. So now, the differences between the template and the sandbox involve the top and bottom sections, as well as the links to the primaries.

I agree we can remove the link to the 2012 primaries. I think the 2008 primaries should probably stay but I don't feel incredibly strongly about it. For me, as a reader of Misplaced Pages, I would be more interested in seeing a link to the primary pages than the 2008 Obama campaign article, but that's probably just a personal preference. I'd also like to note that the 2008 primaries were linked in the template before I started editing it, so I was just trying to put it in a more appropriate spot (i.e. with under the Presidency rather than at the top of the page lumped together with early life, political positions, and family.) So I think it should either be removed or it should stay under the Presidency section, rather than being in the top section, where it is disconnected from other events and not in chronological order. Anyway, I've tried to take all of those thoughts into account on the latest version of the sandbox. If you think it looks good, perhaps we could update the main template? Thanks again for the discussion and your help! Michelangelo1992 (talk) 15:01, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
I know you feel strongly about "terrorist attack consisting of a...", but you are edit warring and forcing your preferred version without gaining consensus. I suggest that you self revert, otherwise you might be temporarily blocked from editing. - MrX 17:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Governors of Arizona

Hello, Spartan. I saw that, back last year, your reformatted this section of List of Governors of New Mexico (with this edit - ). I really appreciate your effort on it, and I like how it looks, so I'm asking you to do the same at this section of List of Governors of Arizona, if you can. I have experience in working on various kind of lists, etc but this seems quite complicated, and it would consume quite a lot of time if I start working on it myself. Plus, I wouldn't want to create mess on the article while I try to improve it. So, I hope you will be able to help with this. Cheers! --Sundostund (talk) 00:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

@Sundostund: I will make it my next project. The newer states are more forgiving. Only 23 to list here instead of 100+ in SC. I'm good at this format and it's just a time commitment.   Spartan7W §   00:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

@Spartan7W: Thanks a lot for a really quick response! I know what you mean - it would be really exhausting (and almost impossible) to reformat some older state in this manner (it would took awful amount of time)... As for Arizona, I was guided by this thought - its in the same region as New Mexico, both are admitted to the Union in 1912, they are the last of the continental (lower 48) states to be admitted, so it would be logical to have the same style for the list of state (post-1912) governors for both of them. Anyway, I'm really glad to hear that you'll make it your next project. Cheers! --Sundostund (talk) 01:01, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1968 Republican National Convention, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Romney. 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) 09:12, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Portrait Changes

The oval portraits that you are adding to articles regarding party conventions are generally less realistic than the images that they are replacing. You say that they "harken back" to campaign posters of the 19th and early 20th centuries, but many of the articles that you are adding these to are not even from those time periods. The square photos are generally of better quality. I am therefore undoing your edits. Display name 99 (talk) 15:02, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

@Display name 99: Less realistic? They are the exact same images with inconsistent backgrounds removed in favor of party colors. Each year and each convention has a uniform appearance: a POTUS and VPOTUS nominee oval color, each portrait is the exact same size. This way, you better see the face of each nominee. Before, you have images of different sizes, different composition, different dimension different crop. The way with rectangular portraits is inferior in many respects because some images are a full torso shot, some a head shot, some a bust shot. The oval style makes a uniform crop for each year, and a general appearance between years. In 2012, for example, you can't even see Obama and Biden's faces, some years you can only see one or the other. I have no idea what 'realistic' means. If there is a uniform style to these, if they are actual contemporary image-based likenesses, what is unrealistic? Removing a cluttered background in many cases is a problem? Obviously many aren't from that time period, that is the point of the word "harken". The entire purpose is to create a clean, uniform appearance for every convention year. This is what I have done and what you haven't taken into account. ALSO, I have put a lot of time and effort into this, why can't you have the courtesy of discussing this first?   Spartan7W §   15:11, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I'll hold off on reverting the rest for now, but I ask you not to change what has already been reverted. I will ping Materialscientist, who does a significant amount of anti-vandalism work, who may be able to determine if the edits are constructive enough to remain. As far as I can tell, they offer no improvement to the article whatsoever. The 2012 DNC article may be an exception, as it is somewhat difficult to see the faces of Obama and Biden, but keep in mind that these are official portraits. In addition, your mention of the 19th and early 20th centuries in the edit summaries is totally irrelevant as the articles that you have thus far made the changes to are not even from that period. I cannot imagine why you felt the need to add that in. For now, let's hold off on making any further edits and wait for another opinion. Display name 99 (talk) 15:18, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

@Display name 99:I mentioned that because that is why they are oval shaped. There has to be some sort of historical basis/merit to making a uniform standard that can apply to the earliest convention, DNC 1832, to the most recent conventions RNC & DNC 2016. The colors I used are colors the parties used this year and in recent years; in both cases the nominee's color reflecting the blue state/red state delineation that began in 2000, for the DNC, both colors are blue because the party uses blue in an exclusive majority of their materials now. Some portraits, particularly earlier photographs like the 1960 convention and before, where the photo's background is blank, those are better than more recent photos by their own merits.

The more modern photographs include many background elements: furniture, flags, bunting, etc., which in such a small area distract and reduce emphasis on the subject's face. Look at the Bush/Cheney portraits in 2000, they are dark, cluttered, and are hard to discern the person's outline from in such a small space. In an individual's infobox, the portrait image is much larger and this isn't an issue. For conventions, the images are so small that even when cropped up close, they can still be excessively distracting. I took each portrait, found its highest resolution copy I could, and isolated the subject and cropped it in a PNG to create the oval. Their resolutions are lower than more recent portraits, and the TIF portraits used in infoboxes, but because the image is so small to begin with, even on a desktop screen, the resolution I used does not detract from what even the best eyes can discern. From an accessibility standpoint, the very small size of these images in their placement to begin with makes an isolation of the person alone better for those with strained vision to see just the person, which is what matters more than anything else. I took all these considerations together to create this uniform standard that can be applied throughout conventions. The fact that they 'harken back' was simply a justification for the ovular shape, which does add an aesthetically interesting element, which I continually hold should not be ignored by Misplaced Pages.   Spartan7W §   15:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Also, by having a uniform set of image files specifically made for convention infoboxes (as their primary function at least), we make it foolproof to align portraits so they are the exact same size. Each image went through the same template and bears the same resolution, thus a uniform pixel height of 125 makes both POTUS and VPOTUS nominee's portraits the exact same size, but makes flipping through different years have a clean, identical look.   Spartan7W §   15:41, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I still don't understand the backgrounds. For the Republican conventions, you have the presidential nominee in red and the vice presidential nominee in blue. Why should the vice presidential nominee be in blue when he is a member of the Republican Party? For the Democratic conventions you gave the vice presidential nominee in a dark shade of blue and the presidential nominee a lighter shade of blue. Why should all vice presidential nominee photos, regardless of party, have a dark blue background, while presidential nominees have a red or light red background depending on their party? I don't find this uniform at all. Display name 99 (talk) 15:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

@Display name 99: It is uniform between years, and there's an explanation for coloration. The de facto official shade of blue the Democratic Party uses is a shade #34AAE0, Hillary's campaign uses it (or shades extremely close to it), and it was used on material for this year's convention, as well as the Democrats' website, and Obama's personal website. Large logos used by the party for their convention use this shade of light/medium blue that is pervasive through the party now, along with a dark shade of blue, which is seen in the 2016 convention logo. The Republican Party's branding isn't as consistent in this regard, and they use various shades of red throughout their main website, twitter, online graphics, printed materials, etc. such that one cannot discern a de facto official shade of red as we can for the Democrats' blue. Thus, following the same method I used for the DNC, I took the colors used in the RNC logo for 2016, which are still red and blue, and used those. They are good colors and reflect the RNC's 2016 logo and shades of those colors in recent logos past. Now, the parties, as I'm sure you know, never actually claimed these colors as their own, on their own. The uniformity of red states and blue states on television media in 2000, likely a coincidence of course, set the de facto official colors for each party that the public recognizes, just as the Elephant and Donkey mascots weren't officially sanctioned but nonetheless took de facto hold.

The Democratic Party has dropped the Donkey entirely from its materials (nothing on their website, social media, convention, etc.), but it has embraced the color blue. Its website uses the aforementioned shade of #34AAE0 more than any other, along with other shades. Democratic candidates bias themselves towards blue colors in their campaign materials (like Hillary's website using a light blue arrow in the H as opposed to earlier red), and this year's convention hall was entirely blue, save for the red stripes on American flags added later on. The Republican Party on the other hand still embraces the Elephant as its now-official mascot, but doesn't embrace red as completely or solely as Democrats do. Their website still uses a grey-blue in much of its banners, their materials feature red but still some blue, Mr. Trump's campaign materials actually have more of a blue-bias than red, and while they do have a red-bias in all materials now, by virtue of their de facto assignment of that color, they haven't abandoned blue as the Democrats have red. As I mentioned before, the 2016 RNC logo used blue, in fact using blue equally as red. Because the GOP has no "official" shade that can be discerned as clearly, and because I drew DNC's colors from their convention logo, drawing RNC colors from their logo seemed a prudent step. If we discuss shades of colors to use, perhaps bringing a shade of red to the Democrats for more patriotic-theme in their standard, that is a change which wouldn't take much effort.  Spartan7W §   16:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Point made. I'm unpinging Materialscientist and undoing my reverts. Display name 99 (talk) 16:26, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

They seem to be an improvement, and I too appreciate aesthetic improvements. I've got one hidden-away-in-plain-sight that I keep watch on. Thanks for caring enough to do the work involved. Didn't know the dems don't use the donkey anymore, something I suggested to Howard Dean when he was DNC chair awhile back (and seemingly others had concerns about more recently). Randy Kryn 17:20, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Democratic Party (United States)/meta/color#Template-protected edit request on 2 September 2016

You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Democratic Party (United States)/meta/color#Template-protected edit request on 2 September 2016. Hi Spartan7W. Just thought you may want to comment on this. --Neve–selbert 00:42, 4 September 2016 (UTC)Template:Z48

Hello again. Just wanted to inform you that I have opened a WP:RFC on the matter, here. Thanks.--Neve–selbert 00:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Gilmore16

Template:Gilmore16 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 13:30, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

October 2016

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Misplaced Pages articles, as you did to Hillary Clinton. Doing so violates Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 01:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

More specifically, you will need to support the claim of "amnesty", which Clinton opponents use as a loaded political term. Please link to where Secretary Clinton, a representative, or her campaign have advocated "amnesty"(defined as "an official pardon" if you google it). 331dot (talk) 01:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Not personal analysis or commentary. Its a statement of reality.

Here: "Defend President Obama’s executive actions—known as DACA and DAPA—against partisan attacks." DACA is using executive power to suspend penalty for immigration violations under law. That is amnesty.   Spartan7W §   01:41, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

The term "amnesty" is not used there, that is your opinion. The definition of "amnesty" is very different than what Secretary Clinton has proposed- and different than prosecutorial discretion(used by presidents and prosecutors of both parties, including Reagan, for decades) but what I think is not relevant, what matters is basing the article content on what reliable sources state. As I state above, please link to where Secretary Clinton or her campaign uses that word. 331dot (talk) 01:42, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Does it matter if the campaign uses the word? Supporting and furthering an executive order whose effect is amnesty for said groups is therefore amnesty. I hardly believe it is our purpose to echo euphemisms and dysphemisms which a candidate or campaign puts forward, especially in the lead section. How is it not POV to included "family support"? That is a euphemism for a new entitlement. Is it wrong to call it an entitlement? Also, you provided no rationale for removal of the segment I added relating to taxation on the rich.

On a related point: The idea of it as "prosecutorial discretion" is quite dubious, appeals courts blocking its imposition clearly call into question the premise of using that tool for en entire class of millions. Why was it necessary to point out Reagan in your little partisan rebuttal? I thought you were going for objectivity here.   Spartan7W §   01:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

It does matter that the campaign has not used the word because "amnesty" is your interpretation of her proposed policies, not an objective analysis. The same goes for the other terminology you used. I think you would agree that we will solve nothing by debating her policies or liberalism and conservatism here. Again, I only ask that you find independent reliable sources that state what you want them to state; sources that indicate she has used the terminology you want to use. 331dot (talk) 01:54, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

At least two others would seem to agree with me, given the comments on Talk:Hillary Clinton in the section I started. I invite you to participate there. 331dot (talk) 01:56, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:PerryLogo2k16.png

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:41, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Nice, but I got to the article before you :)

Planned presidential transition of Hillary Clinton

Hi, you tried to nominate Planned presidential transition of Hillary Clinton for speedy deletion. Not only did you provide a non policy reason, but someone objected to the proposal. So if you still do want to get Planned presidential transition of Hillary Clinton deleted, then please use the WP:AFD process. As far as I can tell we don't need to delete it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:21, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

barnstar

For lauditory work building the cabinet nominations table at Presidential transition of Donald Trump. LavaBaron (talk) 02:55, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Spartan7W. 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Nominee

There's a discussion on the Nikki Haley talk page about her status as nominee. Please join it instead of trying to "discuss" in edit summaries. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:16, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

November 2016

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Calibrador (talk) 18:21, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Cruz16

Template:Cruz16 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 20:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Dispute Notification

I have filed a dispute on the article of Fidel Castro. I do this because it is recommended "If you begin a discussion of another user on a common notice board, it is expected that you will notify the subject user by posting a message on their talk page". Do not report me as vandal. This is the only instance in which I will write something here. If this is not the way to do it, let me know how it is done. Jhaydn2016 (talk) 17:01, 29 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhaydn2016 (talk • contribs)

Spartan7W, you've been very active in the discussion. I wanted to make sure you knew that it's evolved into a Request for Comment and you had a chance to weigh in. Scaleshombre (talk) 00:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Presidential transition of Donald Trump

Why are you so intent of putting a piped link to that article in so many leads? Niteshift36 (talk) 03:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Your tense made no grammatical sense. My version is no more predictive than yours is and its prose is more encyclopedic.   Spartan7W §   03:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not asking you about the tense. You were correct, I could have made the tense better. So I fixed the tense instead of just hitting undo. I'm asking about the piped link to this article. And your version is predictive. Right now, there is a plan to nominate them. Many things can happen between now and then and the nominations may not happen. In fact, I haven't heard some of them even publicly say that they'd accept. So we should be saying "he plans to", not that "he will". Again, that wasn't my question here. The question was about the Presidential transition of Donald Trump article. We're pushing it into a bunch of leads and I'm not sure why. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

@Niteshift36: The Transition has announced their intent to nominate; the fact the announcement has been made negates your point that they haven't "publicly accepted," as an announcement would not be made without such. The eventuality of Senate advice and consent is one thing, but I have not said Y will be Secretary of X, I said that the President-elect has announced he will nominate them. Yes, it is possible some things could change that, albeit unlikely, but saying "they would be nominated" suggests it is a future event that has yet to occur. Even if that is a tiny bit more predictive it doesn't harm the integrity of the article. If we included in an article that President Obama would take action against Assad in the event of chemical weapons usage, that would not be predictive, it would be a documentation of his stated plans/intentions. The fact these changed are reversals of policy we needn't concern ourselves with. Intent shouldn't be altered by plausible but unlikely outcomes that we are accounting for. Policy and plans are policies and plans that should be documented until they are changed, if changed.

I am not "so intent of putting a pipe link" in these articles, but I do believe that linking things to the Transition article gives readers quicker access to documentation. You see Tom Price announced as President-elect's choice for HHS, you look him up, you find a link right there to the Transition. Its functional.   Spartan7W §   04:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

You are inferring that they have accepted. Yes, you're saying he "will", but that's still predictive. I've seen a number of times where a name was floated as a nominee and then withdrawn after something came out about their past, personal life or too much resistance was met. Saying he intends to, or plans, to nominate is 100% correct and has 0% prediction to it. As for my original question, I'm not a fan of more links in the lead, especially one that is going to be obsolete in 6 weeks. Yes, it's in the Tom Price article.... and who put it there? Niteshift36 (talk) 14:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I am not inferring anything. The Office of the President-elect is not going to announce that any person will be appointed for any position unless they have accepted. To think they are just spitting out names and hoping people accept isn't how the world works. So what if the link will be less important in 6 weeks? The article will be amended to reflect their status as nominees to said offices.   Spartan7W §   14:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

• That is an inference. If this happens, then this must have occurred. Is it likely that the potential nominees have accepted? Of course it is. But likelihood is an inference, unless you have some personal definition of the word infer that doesn't match the English language one. Infer: "deduce or conclude (information) from evidence and reasoning rather than from explicit statements." That is precisely what you are doing..... there has been no explicit statement from some of these nominees, thus you are concluding they accepted because "that's how the world works" (because that didn't sound condescending at all when you used it) BTW, is there really an "Office of the President-elect"? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Cabinet of Donald Trump

James Mattis is indeed from Washington State. He is originally from Pullman, and is a current resident of Benton County. Source: http://www.tri-cityherald.com/news/local/article116590898.html -cashorczeck — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cashorczech (talk • contribs) 03:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

@Cashorczech: So what? The state one is from references not their birth/childhood state, but their present state of residence. That is something we don't know.   Spartan7W §   05:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Except we do know, since he just served jury duty in Benton County per my link. Residence is a requirement of jury duty. Unless you're suggesting he lied about his county of residence so that he could enjoy the thrill of serving jury duty in Benton County.... -cashorczech — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cashorczech (talk • contribs) 00:38, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

A 2016 election barnstar

Donald Trump infobox

Hi there. You previously participated in a previous conversation about the best way to reflect Donald Trump's business career in his infobox. You might be interested in an active RfC on this topic. Edge3 (talk) 03:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Trump Infobox RfC

Hello, the previous discussion you were involved in regarding Donald Trump's infobox has closed and there is a new one underway which may interest you. 80.235.147.186 (talk) 01:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:US Presidential Administrations

Template:US Presidential Administrations has been nominated for merging with Template:US Presidents. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. --Nevé–selbert 16:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Please, this discussion would benefit from some additional input. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 22:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Michael T. Flynn

Please remember that the Flynn article is under a 1 revert per day limit. I think the Greenwald cite is ok since he's a notable author on surveillance, government transparency, etc. (see his biography if you're not familiar with his activities). Plus as a general matter, rounding up and citing published political opinions (from all perspectives, not just Greenwald's) is part of our job under NPOV. I'm planning to propose on the talk page that the edit be reinstated. It will be great if you can weigh in on it there.

Thanks,

50.0.136.56 (talk) 03:29, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Added photo

I just added a photo you had uploaded at https://en.wikipedia.org/Nose_art — Preceding unsigned comment added by A ri gi bod (talk • contribs) 18:30, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Questions Regarding Early Presidential Primaries (1940 and Back)

I've been working collecting data on the results for the Democratic Presidential caucuses or state conventions that were held in earlier years, 1940 being the starting point given I was interested at the time in the Anti-Third Term movement that had sprung up then, and while I can't access all the data in question anyway (I'm using the New York Times as a source, but I'm not a subscriber and so can't look at the articles in detail), I've provided them in the talk pages. Having gotten down to 1928 now, however, I'm not certain how best to display the information given, and I'm not sure if there really is a precedent(s) for it given the operational differences between the Modern Primary and the more Archaic Primary of yesteryear. For example;

1. In 1928 Al Smith clearly won the Democratic Presidential Preference Primary in Ohio over Senator Atlee Pomerene, but the latter was awarded the entirety of the delegation. The situation in question is in an article I provided on the talk page for the '28 Democratic Primaries, but when you have delegates not being bound or awarded based on the results of a Primary, should that be counted as a separate contest? How should we display that on a map? Should one be given preference?
2. Depending on the year in question you either end up with a handful, none, or a whole slew of favorite-son candidates ready to represent State delegations, and these candidates technically have "won" delegates. However in some cases, like those I identified for the 1968 Republican nomination race, are far more than the infobox could possibly handle when combined with the actual candidates (even if we are just talking about candidates and favorite sons that won delegates, that would make 17). Should we give preference based on delegates won? On actual candidates vs. Favorite Sons? What about if they've withdrawn and endorsed a candidate? Should Favorite Sons be combined somehow (for map and infobox purposes) and explained separately in another section?
3. In a number of the Presidential Primaries and even Caucuses I have encountered language that the delegates in question are officially unpledged or uninstructed, but have a strong preference or are generally understood for being for a certain candidate. Under those conditions, should those delegations be considered Unpledged, or should they be considered as being for the candidate? Should the votes of those delegations be included in a candidate's vote total?

These are the major questions at the moment. I'll also be asking a few others Presidential Elections Wikiproject as well to chime in, so if you have any ideas on how best I should proceed, I'd ask that the responses be put into Talk:Democratic Party presidential primaries, 1932. Thanks ahead of time. --Ariostos (talk) 03:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:DGA Chair

Template:DGA Chair has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 14:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:NGA Chair

Template:NGA Chair has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • 07:30, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Trump16

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

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

Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. This is a notice that the page you created, Template:Trump16, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Ten Pound Hammer • 02:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:American Revolution sidebar

Template:American Revolution sidebar has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • 04:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Jeb Bush sidebar

Template:Jeb Bush sidebar has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 22:03, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Spartan7W. 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Kasich16

Template:Kasich16 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 16:14, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Spartan7W. 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Newt Gingrich series

Template:Newt Gingrich series has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

March 2019

Your addition to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Misplaced Pages without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Misplaced Pages:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Misplaced Pages. For legal reasons, Misplaced Pages cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Misplaced Pages takes copyright very seriously and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Misplaced Pages:Copying text from other sources for more information. Dr. K. 04:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

@Dr.K.: Please explain to me what copyright material I used? I reverted an edit, admittedly in incorrect comprehension of edit war policy, because the original reversion of a user's additions was done without cause. Please be specific when making accusations.   Spartan7W §   04:19, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

By reverting Nblund's edit you restored the copyvio from Daily Mail. As to the exact details, please see my latest comment at Cortez's talkpage, the one with COPYVIO in the edit-summary. Dr. K. 04:23, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I also found extensive copyvios other than the one I mentioned above for that edit. Please see this updated copyvio report for these paragraphs. Dr. K. 05:23, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Jeb Bush series

Template:Jeb Bush series has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 23:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

2019 US Banknote Contest

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

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Notice

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 Misplaced Pages'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.

You have been adding early information about the election to a few articles. Please read the notices and extensive discussions on the talk pages before continuing, and take note of the special rules on these articles that restrict restoring edits that have been contested. You are certainly welcome to gather sources and suggest changes on the talk pages. Thanks. – bradv🍁 14:35, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions violation

Hello. Your edit to Donald Trump violated the active arbitration remedies in effect on that page, as Talk:Donald Trump, which states:

"24-hr BRD cycle: If a change you make to this article is reverted, you may not reinstate that change unless you discuss the issue on the talk page and wait 24 hours (from the time of the original edit)."

Please revert yourself immediately, to avoid arbitration enforcement sanctions. Thank you. Neutrality 16:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Revert myself for what? A user made an edit to a sourced, factually accurate edit to return the lead to a misleading verbage. I was undoing vandalism. Is this now unacceptable?   Spartan7W §   16:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@El C and Awilley: SPECIFICO talk 16:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Donald Trump edit

How is this edit vandalism? Please explain yourself. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 16:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I provided sourced information to balance a misleading lead sentence. The user provided no explanation or rationale for undoing my edit. He should have taken it to the talk page. Removal of a factually accurate piece of information from a misleading text with no effort to discuss is vandalism.   Spartan7W §   16:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

You can write things that are factually accurate, but nevertheless misleading. Reverting it three times constituted edit warring on your part. 2601:5C5:C100:29C3:8430:A906:B3DE:EB51 (talk) 16:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

January 2021

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Donald Trump; 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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. 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. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

You've already been warned that the Trump article is under sanctions, and more than a single revert may lead to action - take heed, and consider your position. Remember edit warring doesn't care if you're right, it cares that it's happening. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Notice of arbitration enforcement request

I am notifying you of an arbitration enforcement request against you — Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Spartan7W. Neutrality 16:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Indefinite partial block from Donald Trump

AE noticeboard rules

Lisen, I've asked you 3 times now () to please restrict yourself to your own section. Oh well. So anyway, now you definitely know. Please acknowledge receipt of this message. El_C 05:10, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are indefinitely banned from editing or discussing anything to do with the post-1992 American politics topic area (WP:AP2), broadly construed.

You have been sanctioned per a complaint at the AE noticeboard.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at WP:ARBAP2#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you.  El_C 14:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)