User talk:Jdavi333/Archive 7

Another few hours to go
Patience young fellow. We wait until 17:00 UTC, before making updates to the US political offices, today. GoodDay (talk) 09:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Governor of Maryland
Unless Governor Larry Hogan has given any indication that he will resign before the 2022 election, I see no point in assuming that he may resign before then. See WP:CRYSTAL; it is unnecessarily speculative. If we look at 2024 United States presidential election, the president before election is still President Biden. Isn't it also possible that he resigns, is impeached and convicted, or dies? Wouldn't we have to change all of the future elections' incumbents? Sdrqaz (talk) 18:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure. I think it's silly to describe the election as "to replace Larry Hogan." While he happens to be the governor right now, the election is not to replace him. It is to elect a new governor. Jdavi333 (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I'm seeing a distinction: they're effectively the same thing. The 2016 presidential election was to replace Barack Obama and 2008 was to replace George W. Bush and so on. Those presidential elections replaced the lame ducks and elected new presidents. Sdrqaz (talk) 19:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Those articles do not have such a description on them. The 2008 United States presidential election page and the 2014 Maryland gubernatorial election do not even have such descriptions, so your assertion that you are going on precedent is wrong. Jdavi333 (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm making no such assertion. My point was that the two aren't mutually exclusive: an election can be both for the position and for replacing the incumbent. Sdrqaz (talk) 20:15, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Ways to improve 2021 Texas's 6th congressional district special election
Hello, Jdavi333,

Thank you for creating 2021 Texas's 6th congressional district special election.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

"Can you please add a cite the sentence "When congressional seats in Texas become vacant, the Governor may call a special election at any time". Thanks for creating article"

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with. Remember to sign your reply with. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

JW 1961  Talk  17:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

List of presidential trips made by Joe Biden (2021)
Thanks for contributing to List of presidential trips made by Joe Biden (2021). Just a reminder to add reliable sources. Thanks. PatTag2659 (talk) 18:23, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

2021 American League Record vs. opponents: why do you keep editing only the orioles
Just so you know, the template for the American League team records against their opponents (this template, to be exact) specifically states that users should wait until all the games of a specific date have occured to update the template. Do you have any specific reason why you keep editing just the Orioles' record? I am no administrator or any type of moderator, so if this is considered minimodding, feel free to let me know. Thanks. SeaCardinal (talk) 23:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned on that template's talk page, there is zero reason for that "rule." It was never placed there in previous season's and everyone just edited the teams they wanted to. Like every page on Wikipedia, edits should be made by people when and where they want. Jdavi333 (talk) 23:52, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Tim Berry (baseball) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tim Berry (baseball), to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Articles for deletion/Tim Berry (baseball) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

List of pending SCOTUS cases
The Supreme Court separates granted cases by term. See these lists for OT 20 and OT 21, respectively. With that in mind, I thought it would be beneficial to separate the cases into the particular terms, to allow for readers to see which opinions are outstanding this term. – JocularJellyfish TalkContribs 01:29, 8 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I just wanted to follow up with you about this. In light of the links I showed you, would it be appropriate to make the change to the page? I certainly think so. – JocularJellyfish TalkContribs 01:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * go for it. Jdavi333 (talk) 01:26, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds good! – JocularJellyfish TalkContribs 05:06, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Nestle v. Doe
I agree with you that the asterisk makes it appear ambiguous regarding whether Thomas's opinion in the Nestle case commanded a majority, but in other cases with similar circumstances (see Kisor v. Wilkie and LULAC v. Perry for examples), the asterisk is included. The template for the key at the top of the page also makes this clear, saying "An asterisk ( * ) in the Court's opinion denotes that it was only a majority in part or a plurality." (emphasis added). With that in mind, I think it's appropriate to add the asterisk. – JocularJellyfish TalkContribs 19:20, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * OK.Jdavi333 (talk) 23:14, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:2016 Pro Bowl logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:2016 Pro Bowl logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:2017 Pro Bowl logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:2017 Pro Bowl logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

OCT 2021
Please remember that when editing, undoing a revision or otherwise modifying other user's submitted content, the polite thing to do is to discuss the matter first on either the article talk page, or the user's talk page. Please remember to do so in the future. Thank you. 98.178.191.34 (talk) 06:43, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

NFL 3-way tiebreaker notes
OK, I guess we're at the "discuss" phase of WP:BRD. Here's my take. The way ESPN explains the tiebreakers is, at best, misleading. It doesn't adequately or correctly explain how the NFL applies the tiebreakers. The NFL website clearly explains that if one team is eliminated in any step, then the tiebreaker reverts to beginning of the 2-team tiebreaker between the remaining teams. So, in the MIA/BAL/LAC example we currently have, to say Miami wins over LA on "X" criterion, then in separate sentence say Miami wins over Baltimore on "Y" criterion implies that there wasn't really a tiebreaker that looked all 3 teams together. What really happend is that the conference record step in the 3-way, Miami and LA both are 5-5 and Baltimore 5-6. Based on that, Baltimore is eliminated and then we evaluate a 2-way tie between Miami and LA. The way ESPN words it isn't necessarily inaccurate--they just sort of leave out a step. And after all, it is the NFL who is the authority here, not ESPN. LarryJeff (talk) 20:23, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Not saying you’re wrong, but it is well documented that the NFL doesn’t really break the ties well until the end of the season and that sometimes it’s standings are inaccurate. What’s why we use the ESPN playoff standings and not the NFL standings. Jdavi333 (talk) 22:15, 28 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I get that (and I've seen in the past what you're talking about), but I'm not saying we need to use the NFL's version of the standings--only that we should be using their rules for applying the tiebreakers. I think that ESPN is correctly applying the tiebreakers (I don't think I was clear before that I'm not disagreeing with the order in which ESPN lists the teams). What they are not doing correctly is explaining the notes all time when there's a 3- or 4-way tie. Based on the the league's rules for applying the tiebreakers, ESPN's explanatory notes are not--in this case--accurate.LarryJeff (talk) 22:53, 28 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Here's another thought. If it were--as the notes currently imply--2 separate 2-way tiebreakers (Miami-LA and Miami-Baltimore) instead of the actual 3-way, Miami would win over Baltimore by their head-to-head result, not by conference record as stated. LarryJeff (talk) 23:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No, because Miami didn't sweep BAL, LAC, and LV. That is clear in the tiebreaker rules. The way a 3-way tiebreaker works is you apply the tiebreakers in order. So Miami does need to "win" 2 tiebreakers - one against BAL, and one against LAC (who first eliminated LV). You can word it that BAL "drops out" of the tie breaker, but this gets the same result and makes it a little clearer that MIA is beating BAL and LAC for 2 different reasons. Jdavi333 (talk) 01:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)


 * No, they didn't sweep BAL, LAC, and LV--(A) I never tried to say they did and (B) LV is irrelevant at that step anyway, because we already have a note that the first step was to eliminate LV by the division tiebreaker. Which sort of makes my point for me. When you start with these 4 teams tied, the first step (the division tiebreak) eliminates 1 team, then we start at the beginning of a 3-way tiebreaker and another team (BAL) is eliminated. So if we (correctly BTW) state that LV is eliminated at step 1, why are we not saying Baltimore is eliminated in step 2 which is what happens as the tiebreakers are applied. The note "Miami wins tiebreaker over Baltimore...." indicates a comparison between just those 2 teams, but that is not what happened. The conference record step of the tiebreaker is isn't just Miami over Baltimore, it's actually Miami and LA over Baltimore--it's relevant at that step that LA (along with Miami) has a better conference record than Baltimore, and only after that do we get to the step of comparing Miami and LA on common games. But the notes as currently copied from ESPN, do not address it that way.


 * Side note: I realize I that, instead of putting this discussion on your talk page, it should have been on the article talk page for a more public forum. Doing it here was never going to be anything but the two of us stating and re-stating our positions with very little chance of either of us changing our minds. So, I'll copy it there to see if anyone else feels like chiming in toward a group consensus. Happy editing! LarryJeff (talk) 07:05, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 29
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2021 Baltimore Ravens season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Greg Olsen.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 29 December 2021 (UTC)