User talk:Jerzeykydd/Jan10-June10

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring
A complaint has been filed against you on the Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring J.R. Hercules (talk) 23:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
– Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 01:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Warning
Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Wikipedia page. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 04:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Lady Gaga
Please refrain from shouting. It is considered rude and WP:Shouting things loudly does not make them true. Nymf talk/contr. 23:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Illinois governor election 2010
Saw you added an infobox, perhaps you should add Rich Whitney as the Green Party is an officially registered party in Illinois. Plus he got 10.4% last election. - Marcusmax  ( speak ) 23:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point we will have to monitor polls and what not. - Marcusmax  ( speak ) 23:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

United States House of Representatives elections, 2010
I have reverted this edit. With the exception of TX-23, none of those races are considered less than Safe Dem right now. Because there are so many races on the page, we can not afford to include so many. The United States House of Representatives elections in Texas, 2010 article is for individual races, whether competitive or non-competitive. TX-23 is also not being covered by the national media. The other Texas race, Chet Edwards, has been covered by Republicans pressuring him to retire or trying to find a strong candidate. I'm interested in your thoughts on this in case you have a thought from inside Texas politics I cannot be the one to judge whether races are competitive or non-competitive but as the main editor of that page, I have tried to be subjective on what to/to not include, but with other people adding races ranging from Safe Safe D to Safe Safe R, it would be nice to come to a resolution on this. Thanks. BrianY (talk) 05:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Template:ElectionsMD
Re this edit summary: Non-free, fair use images are not permitted on templates, per our policy at Non-free content criteria #9. I'm sorry you think it's BS, but that doesn't change policy. If you'd like to request a change to this policy, you can make such a request at WT:NFC. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

March 2010
Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Public image of Barack Obama, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Scjessey (talk) 12:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Public image of Barack Obama, you will be blocked from editing. Scjessey (talk) 22:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Public image of Barack Obama. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Scjessey (talk) 22:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism to Texas gubernatorial election, 1998
I reverted part of an edit you made on March 4th, because it didn't conform to Wikipedia norms and is technically considered vandalism. You moved the tag from the top of the page, to the middle of the article. Tags that relate to an entire article are to be placed at the top of the article, this is an established Wiki norm. I'm sure you didn't realize that this is considered vandalism, be more careful in the future I've noticed that you have done this several times before. Thanks Highground79 (talk) 18:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

You also moved the tag in the Texas gubernatorial election, 1994 article Highground79 (talk) 19:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

And Texas gubernatorial election, 2002 Highground79 (talk) 19:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Your Reponse: "I perfer if it was in the middle of the page, mostly because of consistency and that the results sections is the main part of the page. Let's not start an edit war, it really isn't a big deal.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 20:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)"

This has nothing to do with my personal opinion because I personally agree with you, but the fact is that it is an established wiki norm that tags relating to the entire article belong on the top of the page. Since it is an established wiki norm there can be no edit-waring regarding this issue because there is no wriggle room, only the correct way (at the top of the page) and vandalism (moving tags pertaining to the entire article to the middle of the page). Highground79 (talk) 05:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy notice
I've reported you for edit warring. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

You are edit warring at Public image of Barack Obama
Please see WP:AN3. Since March 2 you appear to have reverted this article seven times. This fits the definition of long-term edit warring. If you don't join the discussion at AN3 and sort this out, you will most likely be blocked. Please come to the noticeboard and promise to stop warring on this article. The fact that you've been reverted seven times indicates that your changes do not have consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 05:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Per the result of WP:AN3 you have been warned. If you continue to remove a section from Public image of Barack Obama without getting consensus first, you will be blocked. Be aware that articles about Obama are under article probation, which permits accelerated enforcement. See the advice at WP:General sanctions/Obama article probation.  EdJohnston (talk) 22:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments invited
As an occasional or frequent editor of the Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2012 article, your participation in this discussion would be welcome and appreciated. Thanks.--JayJasper (talk) 18:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

volcano info
Hey, thanks for all your edits on the Oregon Senate races. I think I'm going to dial back the info you added about the Mt. St. Helen's eruption on the United States Senate election in Oregon, 1980. It really is only tangentially related to the primary. I see that you wanted to have it have its own section, which makes sense; so the first paragraph, plus the link to the main article you added, should be plenty. It's a little confusing to most readers to have it in the article otherwise. Let me know if you object. Thanks! --Esprqii (talk) 02:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Separate subsection is cool. It just seemed kinda long (WP:UNDUE). I'm happy to make the edit if you like, but wanted to talk with you first. --Esprqii (talk) 02:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, done. --Esprqii (talk) 02:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing
What are you doing? ---> (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12)

Haven't you ever heard of no canvassing? DD2K (talk) 23:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Mass messaging other users is NOT what third opinion states. Did you even read the section?

ANI notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. DD2K (talk) 23:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Thin Ice
This edit summary is unacceptable. Labelling opponants is not the way forward. On another matter, I left you a question at ANI. I am very interested in your response. Spartaz Humbug! 08:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Restoring links to non-existent or deleted images.
In regards to this recent edit of yours. Could you please explain how the removal of references to deleted images is "Not necessary" as indicated by your edit summary? Additionally, what is the benefit of restoring references to deleted images? It is not obvious how having a red link to a deleted copyvio image benefits either the article or the project as a whole. --Allen3 talk 22:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Utah Senate 2010
You can find the reasons for the second roll back of the article on the talk page.

JustAKnowItAll (talk) 20:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on United States Senate election in Utah, 2010. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Ged UK  07:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Florida
Actually, I see that your removal of a candidate's poll numbers when that candidate has been eliminated has been overruled before by admins. "This is a history of the whole election process, not just a guide to who's currently running, so [all] poll numbers are relevant". 82.46.173.111 (talk) 01:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Aftermath
I have reverted your unexplained change for the following reasons. First, it is a word more often associated with a major disaster and/or with significant loss of life. Therefore the use of aftermath relating to a war or 9/11 would be appropriate. This usage appears to be a well supported view,,. Second, I think it is an old-fashioned word with contemporary and more suitable alternatives and finally section headings are covered by WP:AT and WP:Head. Leaky Caldron  14:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Asterisk in section header
Care to explain this reversion? That wasn't vandalism, there's no reason to have an asterisk there with no easy way to find out what it even means. By default I assumed it meant there was a special election in that district, or that something else unusual was afoot, when in fact it was just a normal election that is likely to be in a contested district - no need for an asterisk at all. That can be expressed in prose. SnowFire (talk) 03:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

United States Senate election in Connecticut, 2010
Dear Jerzeykydd:

I can see that you have an interest in political campaigns. One of my favorites is the United States Senate election in New York, 2000. It is incredible! You should give it a look. I love the strong researched information and the summary of the chain of events that led to the ultimate outcome. It's also cool to know how Hillary Clinton faced off with Rick Lazio, and I find the coverage of political blunders and campaign strategy especially intriguing. For me, that is one of the best articles on a political election, par none. If you know a better one, let me know.

Anyway, in your recent edit on the Connecticut Senate election, I took special interest in the statement you made regarding wikipedia protocol. I get the feeling you've done a few of these election articles and I want to know what a good election article looks like. Is it typically about the incumbent? What exactly makes a good lead paragraph? I'm trying to figure out what you were going for with the edits to make it so much shorter.
 * -- Sc r ew ba ll 23 talk 04:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey Jerzeykydd, I noticed your edit on the page in regards to the current Republican candidates on the ballot. I really wish I knew more about the procedures regarding the Republican primary, but the latest articles I've read puts things in the best perspective. Check these out. I thought they were really cool, especially the one from The Hour:


 * http://www.thehour.com/story/487191
 * http://www.middletownpress.com/articles/2010/06/04/news/doc4c08681a006c1330941565.txt
 * -- Sc r ew ba ll 23 talk 22:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Take it easy
Jerzeykydd, we have all had times when we thought we were right and no one could tell us otherwise. Before you respond, please, take a breather and let your thoughts settle.

Regarding the Connecticut Senate race, I would like to make it clear that we have to uphold NPOV and avoid outlandish predictions. As you are undoubtedly aware, McMahon and Simmons are the only candidates in the primary at this time. Schiff's place is still in the air. For someone to predict that "McMahon is the likely nominee unless Schiff qualifies" is completely biased. How could anyone say that? Qualifying for the ballot does not mean a guarantee of success for Schiff, and I would like you to remember that Linda is labeled as the presumptive nominee, not the formal nominee.

The categories of candidates is a lot better now; I understand you do not want to see Schiff in the same place as Foley and the rest, and I think we can come to a good agreement on where he is now, right there with McMahon and Simmons. On the other category changes, I do not agree with the label "declined convention ballot" because declined means to turn down an opportunity. The only people who declined anything were people like Kudlow, who had the opportunity to run, but declined. I also recommend you please read more about Richard Blumenthal and the Democratic Convention - you will see that Lee Whitnum and Mosler are out of the picture.

If you have any questions, please let me know. :-)

Sincerely, -- Sc r ew ba ll 23 talk 18:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Jerzeykydd, there are many different groups of candidates depending on how far they made it in the race. The labels are not extremely helpful. Good explanations on each candidate help a lot more. In the Republican race, candidates like Caligiuri and Foley ran but dropped out before the convention. Some candidates declined the offer to run (Kudlow). If anyone wants to know what candidates were on the convention ballot, they can read the results of the convention on the table. McMahon, Simmons, Schiff, Ethan Book, Forras are all there. The primary ballot, on the other hand, is not official yet, and I know some editors want Schiff to be on it, but it just is not a definite fact at this time. Again, please look at this objectively and not personally. -- Sc r ew ba ll 23 talk 18:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Check this out
Jerzeykydd, I think I know what might help us out here. Check this out.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/decline

On the verb definition, definition # 3, decline is used as refuse or turn down. | Months ago, there were two candidates who turned down their opportunity to run, labeled as Declined Candidates. Later on, there were candidates who withdrew from the Republican race, such as Foley and Caliguiri. Since then, there have been many more drop outs, but the only two who actually declined were Kudlow and Shays.

What I am trying to make clear is that people like Caliguiri and Foley never declined the Convention ballot - they dropped out before they could make it to the convention.

- Sc r ew ba ll 23 talk 19:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Primary vs. Convention candidates
I saw your edit on the Democratic side. The purpose of the convention is to pick a nominee! Blumenthal won! He is the nominee! There will not be a Democratic primary. The only reason there is a Republican primary is because Simmons decided he wanted to challenge McMahon, and since he won well over 15% during the convention, he was allowed to do that. -- Sc r ew ba ll 23  talk 19:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Perfect! Good Work!
| Outstanding! I like your work! -- Sc r ew ba ll 23  talk 19:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 04:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback, Talk:United States Senate election in California, 2010
– Zntrip 07:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

2012
I hope you realize how lazy you sound here. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)