User talk:LacrimosaDiesIlla/Archive 1

Welcome!
Hello, LacrimosaDiesIlla, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Nahshon. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Alephb (talk) 15:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Trump SCOTUS list
Hi, just wanted to say that the article should be more explicit on who was and was not the pre-election list. The paragraph before the list of judges gives the impression that every name was on the list of 21 judges. In fact this is how I ended up making the edit, read the entry thinking Kavanaugh was among the pre-election 21 but then realized that was not the case. Cheers! Latex-yow (talk) 21:34, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Here is simple thing to try: just add that they were not part of the pre-election list in brackets after their name, the same way it is indicated for some judges that they are being considered for the circuit court vacancy.


 * PS: Maybe we could turn this into a table? Then being on the list could be column ... Latex-yow (talk) 00:13, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The text is much better thank you, the table just occurred to me as I was writing the response, finally I do think something more visible and explicit than [note 3] is preferable because it is an important distinction when you compare it to note 4 and 5. Maybe we could put a dagger and then explain the dagger in the text right before the list starts? Latex-yow (talk) 02:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


 * This version (even separated the the original list from the second list) is perfect, thank you! Latex-yow (talk) 17:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Ruthenian Catholic Church
Thank you for your offer of help. Here are the pages that link to "Ruthenian Catholic Church". On these pages, link(s) to that disambiguation page should link elsewhere, probably to either the Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church or the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, but editors without detailed subject knowledge are having difficulty in deciding which is correct. Certes (talk) 23:07, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * There were fifteen pages that still had incoming links and I went through and disambiguated all of them. Looks like this project is complete. Cheers! LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 01:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Cardinal electors
Do you have any sources that question whether all 121 cardinals under the age of 80 would participate in a conclave were one to be held now? That seems to be your position. Or is it just a question of phrasing? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 16:28, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not have any sources besides UDG. But 121 cardinals voting in a conclave would clearly violate ecclesiastical norms for the conclave and would thus raise questions about the legitimacy of the election in a way that no one under the circumstances could do anything about (a Pope could change the limit, but when the Papacy is vacant, no one can change the norms). I assume that if all 121 showed up, the most junior one would be politely told to stay out of the conclave. I was originally going to just change "would be eligible" to "might be eligible" and stick the requirement from UDG in a footnote, but I decided to leave "would be eligible" and just make the tension between the current number of potentially eligible cardinals and the legal requirement clear. I think the phrasing I ended up with leaves open both the possibility that all 121 might be allowed (even though the norm says otherwise) and the possibility that one of them would be excluded in order to conform to the norm. I'm certainly open to different phrasing. I guess the flip side to your question to me is whether anyone else has any sources that actually say that 121 cardinals would all be eligible to vote (i.e., that the norm would be actively violated). Individually, each of them certainly should be, but the claim that the whole group of them would be eligible together presents a real problem, and I doubt whether any reputable source would unhesitatingly assert that all of them could be eligible in violation of the relevant norms. What are your thoughts? LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 13:51, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * All (and I really think all is correct) the usual people who write about this refer to 121 cardinal electors. None adds any qualification like "possible" or "eligible". And all of them mention the 120 limit, sometimes in the same sentence as the 121 figure. So it's not like you know something they don't. You've decided to make an issue of it and they do not. Which does not mean your logic is wrong, just that you're out of sync with them. It's a puzzlement.
 * It's possible to follow the sources and just say 121 under 80 and leave it at that. That's what the journalist sources say. The phrase you've used on List of living cardinals--"notwithstanding the fact that"--is heavy handed but not inaccurate. Perhaps I'll pose the question to one of the wise journalists who've mentioned the 120/121 figures without explanation and see what he says.
 * Note that, in a note I added to College of Cardinals, Robert Mickens in Commonwealth explains that John Paul II issued "temporary derogations" to get around the 120 rule, though no one else mentions that and you'd expect someone would have, especially in 2001 when he went to 135! But "derogations" is also the term used for excusing a cardinal-designate from being consecrated a bishop as sometimes happens, and I've never seen that properly announced. Everyone just say so-and-so got a dispensation so it must be so, but it doesn't seem to be published anywhere. Yet we could hardly imagine that JPII would have allowed for a consistory in which 15 cardinals would be barred from voting, including the archbishops of Mainz, New York, and Buenos Aires. I can't imagine that any more than I can imagine Francis contemplating a consistory where Gregorio Rosa Chávez of all people would be left sitting in the hall.
 * So I think the sources are less than perfectly satisfying, but absolutely consistent. And we shouldn't underline the apparent inconsistency when no one else does. And the derogation explanation see likely but of course it's a surmise. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 00:36, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, Pope Francis doesn't seem like the kind of guy to sweat the details, but regardless of whether he has contemplated Rosa Chavez being left out of a possible consistory or not, that's all speculation until somebody finds a source for it. I fundamentally disagree with the idea that we can't juxtapose facts which are in tension with each other just because our sources don't do that for us. The reality is that as a tertiary work, Wikipedia necessarily synthesizes its sources, and one of our sources for cardinals and consistories is precisely the provisions of UDG. Putting facts together from different sources is certainly within our purview, although the extent to which we can draw conclusions not drawn by our sources may be limited. I am certainly quite open to having the point that I added reworded or transformed into a note of some kind, but I think it is fair and reasonable to make some kind of mention of it. I am not committed to the word "notwithstanding," although I don't think it strikes me as "heavy handed." Can we find a different wording or phrasing or approach that can be mutually agreeable? LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 01:40, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * What you are proposing is textbook editorial synthesis, a practice that is strictly forbidden on Wikipedia, and so I can understand and support Bmclaughlin9's reluctance to allow this to be done. Other than doing simple arithmetic on some numbers, we should steer scrupulously clear of interpretations like the one you suggest, that is clearly not explicitly present in even a single source. Find a source for us and then you are more than welcome to report on it in articles here, but without a source that interprets UDG in light of the derogations from it, we are duty-bound to say nothing on the subject. 72.201.104.140 (talk) 05:20, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think the statement we're discussing is an example of the kind of synthesizing that WP:SYNTH proscribes because the combination of the two facts does not clearly imply a conclusion not present in our sources. The sentence at issue does not imply that actually one of the electors would not be allowed to vote (which, admittedly, would be a claim not present in our sources). It certainly does imply that there are currently more (putatively) eligible cardinal electors than Church law allows, but that's obvious to anyone who reads the sources and not something that anyone would dispute. The thing that might be disputable is whether or not this purported "extra" elector would actually be allowed to vote, but if it implies any particular answer to this question, the current juxtaposition would actually seem to be in favor of the "extra" elector being allowed to vote, which is the position already taken by our sources, so that's not a problem either. If this is a case of WP:SYNTH, what precisely is the implied claim that is not supported by our sources? LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 15:48, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Every Job is mportent.
Hello Every Job in the Us goverment is mportent no matter if they are appointed by someone else. If you dissacree please email me at Bobbybattaglia@gmail.com Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.36.68.29 (talk) 10:12, 26 July 2017‎ (UTC)
 * The question is not whether these jobs are important, but whether the particular people in question are political appointees of Donald Trump. The FEC commissioners, for example, were not appointed by Donald Trump, so they do not belong in an article titled "Political appointments by Donald Trump". If you want to discuss this with me, you can continue the discussion here, or on the talk page for your IP address, or on the talk page for the article, but I will not continue this discussion off Wikipedia and certainly not with my personal email address. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 18:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok here are some more names you did not take out that are still there who was appointed by another president Stephen Burns Jeff Baran Sharon Bowen Nicholas Rasmussen Michael Huerta Daniel B. Smith Brett McGurk Tom Shannon Andrew McCabe Francis Collins Frank Klotz and Brian Moyer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.36.68.29 (talk) 15:14, 26 July 2017‎ (UTC)
 * If that's true, then they should also be removed. I didn't read through the entire article looking for names that needed to be removed. Would you like to remove these people, or should I do it? LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 19:32, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

If you can that will be great. I am bissiey emailing all my friends about the Helfth Cere plan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.36.68.29 (talk) 15:44, 26 July 2017‎ (UTC)

Makeing a new page
Hello LacrimosaDiesIlla we should make a new page called the white house jobs that are still filled with other Presidents under Trump. We can add the FEC, National Science Foundation, Director of the Bureau of Economic Analysis, Under Secretary of Energy for Nuclear Security, Director of the National Institutes of Health, Deputy Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Under Secretary of State (Political Affairs), Special Presidential Envoy for the Global Coalition to Counter the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, Bureau of Intelligence and Research, Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, Sharon Bowen Commissioner of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Jeff Baran and Stephen Burns Commissioner of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ext. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.36.68.29 (talk) 15:38, 26 July 2017‎ (UTC)
 * How about if we just add a section to the article that already exists for holdover appointees? That might make everyone happy. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 20:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Sounds Great! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.36.68.29 (talk) 16:09, 26 July 2017‎ (UTC)

Donald Trump sidebar revert...
Can you explain to me why you would add the sidebar to List of federal judges appointed by Donald Trump and not do it for the other Presidents and their judicial appointments? To me it makes it look too cluttered. There's no precedent for any of the other presidential judiciary lists to include a sidebar so why add it to Trump? If you added the bar for every topic that it covers, it'd be a lot: for his Cabinet, for overseas trips, controversies, etc...the list goes on. Why include it? Just curious. Snickers2686 (talk) 19:06, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm actually not the one who added the Trump sidebar to the article originally. That was someone else. And since that is the only part of your question that applies specifically to me and I see you've started a thread for this topic on the article's talk page, I will address the rest of your questions there, so that others who are interested may be able to follow the discussion and join in. I hope you will be amenable to proceeding in this way. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 15:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

United States Ambassador to South Sudan
Good morning LacrimosaDiesIlla On 8/3/17 President Trump and the White House named Thomas J. Hushek to be United States Ambassador to South Sudan https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog Can you please tell the User the page is called Political appointments by Donald Trump and if It comes from the White House it should be on the page. Sure he's currently a FSO. But President Trump did appoint him and the page is called Political appointments by Donald Trump. Thank you so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.36.68.29 (talk) 05:21, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're referring to or who you wanted me to talk to, but the working consensus on the "Political appointments by Donald Trump" page has been to exclude Ambassador appointments if they are career FSOs, and I support that consensus. The nominee for Ambassador to South Sudan is not the first example of such an appointment who has been omitted from the page; there have been many others already over the last several months. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 15:25, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Causing problems
Recent edits by an IP user(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2602:306:31B4:1C10:FDD8:D71B:A0BB:984E) to this and several other pages consistently make Chaldean Christians their own ethnic group rather than being Assyrian. I don't know enough about the subject matter to know if this is correct. However, similar past edits were reverted, and the current edits also make claims beyond what is in the cited sources. Thus the placement of the flags int he hopes they'll attract someone more knowledgeable. 2601:401:502:320A:F4EA:1F1D:9586:DF95 (talk) 03:49, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing this to my attention. It looks like another editor has already taken care of reverting all of the various edits. My own position on this derives from the fact that Wikipedia uses "Assyrian" as a catch-all term and so we need to use our own terminology consistently (especially when wikilinking, since Chaldean people tells you about an ancient civilization). As far as I understand it, "Chaldean" is primarily a religious, rather than an ethnic, identity, and the Chaldeans are ethnically Assyrians. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 14:38, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Formation of Donald Trump's Cabinet
Hi LacrimosaDiesIlla how come you Undid the Job I did on the Formation of Donald Trump's Cabinet page?

I just added John Kelly to the White House Chief of Staff section And I did not know why The White House Chief of Staff was green and the color Key for that job is Gray so I made the White House Chief of Staff gray like it tells in the Color Key at the top. and If you could add a White or Gold Color code for the Acting Person for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_of_Donald_Trump%27s_Cabinet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_of_Donald_Trump

And here are the color Key's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_of_Donald_Trump%27s_Cabinet#The_Cabinet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_of_Donald_Trump#Announced_nominees

And Yes Gray is in the Color key Between Green and Blue. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.36.68.29 (talk) 12:42, 18 September 2017‎ (UTC)
 * Well, I explained why I reverted the edits in my edit summary. The main problem with the color is that you were using a color that had no meaning in that part of the article. In that part of the article green means roughly "successful appointment" and red means "appointment failed". Gray has no meaning in those sections. The color keys you're pointing to indicate that it is used for nominees who assumed office without Senate confirmation which does not apply to Kelly as Secretary of Homeland Security. So just leave the part about him being Secretary of Homeland Security alone. Trump picked him and he got the job, so it's green. When Trump picks somebody else, we'll have to add another entry and make that person green also if they get confirmed. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 18:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

It does have a meaning Look under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_of_Donald_Trump%27s_Cabinet#The_Cabinet Gray means Individual took office with no Senate consent needed Green means Individual officially confirmed by a full Senate vote — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.36.68.29 (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2017‎ (UTC)
 * That only applies to the template, not to the article as a whole. Besides, you tried to shade Kelly gray as Homeland Security Secretary which would be wrong either way because he was confirmed by the Senate for that office. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 18:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I shade him out on the Homeland Security Secretary becuse he was Picked to be White House Chief of Staff. By Trump And now this is the only page we all have to work on for the new DHS Secretary and about my spelling and signing name well I am a Spical Needs person so ya. ADHD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.36.68.29 (talk) 15:06, 18 September 2017‎ (UTC)
 * Special needs has nothing to do with it, and I'm not complaining about your spelling. But if you want to be an active part of the Wikipedia editing community, meaning things like engaging other editors in discussions then you need to learn how to sign your posts. It's not hard. Just type the four tildes. Otherwise, how do you think the rest of us know who we're talking to? LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 19:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I was pinged on my talk page, so I will comment here. I understand both sides of the argument, but I do think Kelly's color needs to be a different color in the "Chief of Staff section" down below. I think it could/can be confusing if we shade him (and possibly even Renice) green... especially since at the top of the section says "This position does not require confirmation by the Senate." and up at the top (even though it is in the template) says "Individual officially confirmed by the Senate"... Corkythe hornetfan  (ping me) 19:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with applying a different color in the Chief of Staff sections of the page, provided that that color is explained somewhere as meaning something in particular. The problem is that colors were being used in two slightly different ways in different parts of the page, which is fine, but if there's a key for the template, there should be a key for the other usage as well. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 19:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Question is... what color do we use that still makes the text compliant with WP:CONTRAST??? We can easily add a key for it, we just need to differentiate it from the rest! Corkythe hornetfan  (ping me) 03:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * But if we add a key, then we don't actually need a new color. Just create a key that says "green with check mark" indicates individual was selected and assumed office (or simply "got the job"), while "red with big X" means they were selected and their nomination failed. The real problem here, the way I see it, is that we're going to want to use the same green check mark for Priebus and Kelly that we're using for all of the Senate confirmed appointees, and in that case I think using any other color for shading is more visually misleading in terms of showing they got the job than it is helpful in distinguishing Senate-confirmed positions from not. I'm also bothered by the apparently arbitrary use of italics in those candidate tables. They seem to have been applied willy-nilly without a clear rationale, and certainly no explanation for the italics is provided. I am inclined to remove all of the italics. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 16:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit war warning
Your recent editing history at Nehushtan shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 15:30, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Overreact much? I wasn't the one with two reverts on the same page within nine hours. You undid a lot of hard work with only a perfunctory edit summary that utterly failed to address most of what I had done, giving the impression that you had mass-reverted by reflex rather than actually looking at what I was trying to accomplish (which was given in a series of fourteen edits, all with helpful edit summaries). In response, I restored my edits while also responding to the only criticism you had actually expressed and began a discussion on the talk page. To which your response was (1) to completely revert all of my work again instead of trying to salvage anything I might have done that might have constituted an improvement to the article, (2) to complain about my not following WP:BRD (which is an optional method according to its own documentation, rather than a requirement for editing), (3) to proceed immediately to posting this edit war warning on my talk page, and (4) only then to engage in the discussion which I had begun on the talk page. Since you seem to think we should be following BRD (something which I never claimed, although I did open a discussion once you reverted my edits the first time), let me remind you that WP:BRD says quite clearly, "If your bold edit was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version. If your reversion was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version." (Emphasis added.) So your own practice (of re-reverting to your version of the page after I reverted your reversion of my bold edits) does not follow BRD either. You might also want to review how BRD talks about edit warring; I think you may have neglected the part about how "restoring one's edit without accommodating some aspect of the other editor's remarks is a hostile act of edit warring". You have yet to accommodate any aspect of my original edits or remarks, despite the fact that a lot (in my eyes, most) of what I did has nothing to do with the one critique you made. You should perhaps also consider whether reflexively posting an edit war warning (before even engaging in the discussion on the talk page!), when I had already both (1) tried to respond to your original criticism by changing my version of the page to take it into account and (2) started a discussion on the talk page so that we could discuss and move forward if there were any remaining issues, was a good way to practice civility or if it was unnecessarily hostile. Having taken some time to cool down myself, I am hopeful that you are also in a calmer mood now and will be open to working with me to improve the page in the ways that I was trying to when this all started. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 15:54, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Congressional Review Act
Hi there, I would like to add a column for Fate in Congressional_Review_Act. When I added it a few weeks ago your legitimate comment was that the column was not populated with the relevant info (e.g., the respective vote counts and dates that it passed each house). Could you help me track it down please? I think it is very helpful to have that info documented and easily accessible on the page (no different than knowing the vote count and dates for defeated efforts). GZee (talk) 16:21, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I think it is different, and I don't really care to see this information included in the table (partly because it's so easy to find if you know where to look) so I'm not going to collect it for you, but I won't stop you if you want to put it together. I don't think the column you want to add should be called "Fate" in the "Successful Uses" section of the article; I would try something else like "Legislative History" or "Progress of Resolution" or something like that. If you simply click on the links in the "Resolution" column you will be taken to summary pages for each bill on Congress.gov which have all of the information you are looking for. Click on the "Actions" tab and you should see a list of important actions in the history of the bill including the dates it was passed by each house, along with the vote count in each case. I think up to this point we have been using the date the President signed the bill as the date for "Date Enacted". If you're going to add the President signing each bill to the new column (which might be worthwhile, since they weren't all signed by President Trump), then I would recommend that you double-check carefully and make sure that the date given in the new column is the one Congress gives as the date the President signed it, and that the date given by Congress for when the resolution "Became Public Law" be the one that appears in the "Date Enacted" column. (I expect these all to be the same, but they might not be.) Hopefully that helps. Let me know if there's anything else I can help with. Cheers! LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 23:54, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * P.S. If you need to take some time to collect this before you go public with it (and I would certainly recommend not editing this on the article page until you're ready to get all of it done in a reasonably short amount of time), you can copy the table from the article and work on editing it in your sandbox. And then when it's finished and you like how it looks, you can copy it back from your sandbox into the article. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 23:57, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Requested move of Jeffrey C. Mateer
Please see the discussion on Talk:Jeffrey C. Mateer. – JocularJellyfish TalkContribs 01:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies
I created Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies being as several of his nominees have been of contention, i.e. L. Steven Grasz, Amy Coney Barrett. And now with the withdraw requests of Brett Talley and Jeff Mateer--I think the article makes sense to create and maintain.

However, it has been nominated for deletion and I'd like your viewpoint on the matter. (See:Afd:Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies). Snickers2686 (talk) 18:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy holidays!
Marquardtika (talk) 06:04, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 20:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Returned nominees...
Hello and Happy Holidays!

I noticed you reverted the edits on List of federal judges appointed by Donald Trump and noted that the Senate hadn't adjourned yet. According to the Senate Executive Calendar they have adjourned and returned some nominees, unless there's a different Senate website that states differently. I would think the article should reflect that, right? Snickers2686 (talk) 16:52, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for opening a dialogue on this point. Unfortunately, you have misread or misunderstood the Senate's Executive Calendar: it actually says exactly the opposite of what you think it does. The copy of the Executive Calendar that you have linked to is for a (pro forma) meeting of the Senate to be held in three days on Wednesday, December 27. The very fact that it is a schedule for a meeting that hasn't happened yet ought to indicate that the current session is not over, but to be clear, check the top section of the cover page, where there are spaces for the first session (i.e., 2017) and the second session (i.e., 2018). Notice that the Executive Calendar indicates that the first session was "convened January 3, 2017," but the line which would indicate when the first session was adjourned remains blank: that is because the first session has not yet been adjourned. When it is, that line will be filled in, and when the second session begins, the next line will say something like "convened January 3, 2018." The unanimous consent agreements detailed beginning on the second page, which include the suspension of Rule XXXI for various nominees (but not the listed nominees which are exceptions to the suspension of the rule) are agreements about what the Senate is going to do, not things it has already done. Once they're carried out, unanimous consent agreements are no longer printed in the Executive Calendar, because the Executive Calendar is a forward-looking document that shows what business is before the Senate (i.e., things that are coming up, not things that have passed). That the nominations have not yet been returned can be further demonstrated just from a careful reading of the Executive Calendar itself by considering one particular case: Brett Talley is listed as one of the nominations that is going to be returned (i.e., one of the exceptions to the suspension of Rule XXXI; you can see his name toward the bottom of the fourth page), and yet his nomination is still listed as being before the Senate on p. 14 (or rather, the page which is numbered "14" at the top). This is because the Senate plans to return his nomination to the President, but has not yet done so. Moreover, if you consult the Senate's own record of nominations in the current Congress, you will find that it has not yet returned any nominations to the President and that all of the nominees whose nominations are scheduled to be returned when the current session is adjourned are still listed as pending either in committee or on the Executive Calendar. Finally, let me point you to the US Courts website which is the primary source for all of the information in the article other than vote counts. Its records still indicate that all of the nominees are still pending before the Senate. (The US Courts website doesn't seem to have processed the last two DC nominees—Jung and Otake—yet, but otherwise it exactly agrees with the last version of the page as I left it.) There are no reliable sources which indicate that the Senate has returned any of these nominees to the President yet for the simple reason that it has not done so (yet). And Wikipedia should not report events that are still in the future as having happened already. If you agree with me, please self-revert your edit (because the page is under strict rules right now restricting editors to one reversion per 24 hours, and my last edit counts as a reversion, so I do not feel empowered to revert your edit until some time tomorrow). If you don't, please show me where I went wrong. Actually, I think under the current warning posted on the edit page, you should probably self-revert even if you disagree with me, because my edit was in fact a reversion of edits by JocularJellyfish, and your edit would therefore seem to fall under the restriction not "to reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of the article". If this is the case, after your self-reversion, I would suggest that we move this discussion to the talk page and try to reach consensus there. I hope that all makes sense. Cheers! And Merry Christmas! LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 20:29, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Please refer to this comment before editing List of federal judges appointed by Donald Trump
I am passing this to several folks for their reference, so if you get this, you aren't the only one, Talk:List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Donald_Trump. Bottom line, nobody should be removing Judges from the list until the morning of January 4th, when the Congressional Record of January 3rd will be available, properly sourcing the anticipated edit. Safiel (talk) 02:59, 26 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Note After reading your comments just above on this page, you already appear to understand the situation properly. Safiel (talk) 03:04, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Justices and Senior Status
Good evening! I just wanted to give you a heads up about a contentious topic that doesn't seem to be going away, Supreme Court Justices and senior status --do we acknowledge it in Presidential tables (i.e. Judges appointed by (insert name)) tables or don't we? I did a ping earlier but I'm not sure if it worked. The relevant discussion is here. Feel free to add to the discussion. I'm just tired of the reverts and re-reverts and constant back and forth so I'm trying to reach a consensus. If there's any other editors you think would benefit from the discussion, please let them know. Thanks! Snickers2686 (talk) 02:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Future vacancies
I'm not going to change it back until the site is updated, but the other district court seat was for Quattlebaum. – JocularJellyfish TalkContribs 16:39, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. I wasn't sure if you had double-counted the Sullivan vacancy or not because you made two consecutive edits increasing the number, but the first one did not include any explanation of your rationale and the site wasn't showing any changes. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 16:43, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited San Escobar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page San Lorenzo ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/San_Escobar check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/San_Escobar?client=notify 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) 09:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Re: List of federal judges appointed by Donald Trump
Okay, why do we need a breakdown when it comes to future vacancies? I'm not understanding that. It kind of gets confusing when you add in too many and then there's announcements or one comes to fruition. Why not just keep a general number? There was initially 32 vacancies because Victor J. Wolski will be taking senior status on July 1st. I don't know if it was a mistake or what, but it's not noted any more at uscourts.gov. anymore, although that's an Article I court I believe, but since they initially included it, that's why it was noted in the total. Snickers2686 (talk) 18:15, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, we don't need it any more than we need the breakdown of existing vacancies. The reality is that there is very little distinction between the two kinds in terms of Trump's appointment power, especially when so many of the so-called "future" vacancies are conditioned on the confirmation of a successor. Practically speaking, these are no different from an existing vacancy in that the seat can be filled as soon as the President can manage to get a nominee confirmed. I don't see how this is really, in itself, any more confusing than keeping track of the existing vacancies. The only difference is that USCourts doesn't do the breakdown of future vacancies for us, but there's not enough of them for that to be a serious obstacle. We've been keeping that breakdown updated for (at least) months now; removing it without comment, let alone discussion/consensus, seemed like something that could reasonably be undone. And every time the numbers shift, there's other cleanup work that has to be done on other pages anyway (updating the "current composition" of the relevant court on that court's page, editing the judge's own article, etc.), so we still have to know who's status is changing. The confusion over Wolski was USCourts' fault because that's an Article I Court; for the time being, they've apparently decided not to count him anywhere or list his impending vacancy on any of their counts. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 18:34, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * When was there consensus that a breakdown of future vacancies was even needed? Snickers2686 (talk) 18:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Formally, of course, there wasn't. But there was obviously an implicit (or informal) working consensus because it remained on the page for so long and was updated along with the other numbers by multiple different users without being challenged by the regular editors. And I repeat my point that practically there is very little difference between "existing" and "future" vacancies and that, if we are going to provide any breakdown at all, it makes no sense to not breakdown the future vacancies as well. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 18:41, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * So there doesn't need to be a discussion to include it but there needs to be run to remove it? Why is that? To me a general number of future vacancies is good enough. Snickers2686 (talk) 19:39, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * My original point, if you will review what I wrote above, was that you removed the breakdown without even commenting on it (no explanation in your edit summary of what you were doing or why), let alone asking any other editors what they thought about it, which gave me no compunction about restoring it. Obviously you find "a general number of future vacancies [to be] good enough" or you wouldn't have removed the breakdown; I have now explained in detail why I disagree and you have not engaged my points at all. If you wish to continue this conversation please engage my argument, or at least answer the following question: Would you really prefer a version of the page which does not in any way indicate that there is a future Supreme Court vacancy? And if you think that that vacancy should be distinguished among the "general number of future vacancies" what objection can you really make to a full breakdown? LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 19:55, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * But in general, the answer to your question is "yes". When two editors disagree over a "bold" change, the usual sort of default practice is to revert to the status quo ante and then discuss the change in the hopes of reaching consensus which everyone can be happy with. Obviously, in this case, that consensus should probably include more than the two of us. Please consult WP:BRD. (Yes, I understand that the BRD cycle is an "optional" one, but it's also a community standard.) LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 20:18, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * So because there wasn't an edit summary? Forget it. Do what you want. Maybe I'll just refrain from editing the page altogether. Snickers2686 (talk) 20:21, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope, that's not what I said, and the page would be the worse for your abandoning it. What I said was that I felt no compunction about reversing your change because you had not given any reason for it at all (as you might have done in an edit summary). But this was only a tangential point amid my detailed explanation of why I thought the breakdown should be included. If you still disagree and think it should be removed, I have suggested following the BRD cycle. But that requires having an actual discussion about the issue itself (i.e., should we include the breakdown or not?). I can't have that discussion by myself, and you seem to be distracted by my ancillary comments about process. If you would like to discuss why we need the breakdown (which is the question you began this thread with), please reply to the reasons I gave in my initial reply above. If you find them inadequate or mistaken, just tell me how or why. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 20:44, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Like I said, don't worry about it. We'll keep it since it "makes sense" to break down the future numbers too. I still find it asinine but oh well. Have a good one! Snickers2686 (talk) 20:48, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, have a good weekend! LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 20:53, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

July 2019
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Florida Attorney General, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. ''Note "The Florida attorney general" is uncapitalized because "attorney general" is preceded by modifiers "The" and "Florida", per MOS:JOBTITLES bullet 3 and table column 2, example 5: "Mao met with American president Richard Nixon in 1972." Any proposal for modification to the guideline should be posted at its talk page, WT:MOSBIO. '' — Eyer (If you reply, add   to your message to let me know.) 13:50, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Blue slip, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Blue_slip check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Blue_slip?client=notify 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) 08:05, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

70 vs 69
The AL seat isn't vacant as it won't be till June 30. I know that US courts website claims it vacant but the official middle Alabama website has him as active. Whoever put it as vacant will probably change it to future before long as it also claims he left mid alabama seat 2/11 which is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunter79 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Important Notice
Doug Weller talk 18:50, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

judges
good lord you're pompous; just say "we sort by date", man  Nevermore27  (talk) 17:15, 7 April 2022 (UTC)


 * @Nevermore27 There's no need for the ad hominem. You explained your edit; I explained my reversion. I prefer writing detailed edit summaries to getting caught up in edit wars or talk page discussions. Cheers! LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 20:39, 7 April 2022 (UTC)


 * "ad hominem" means to try and invalidate someone's argument by means of personal insult. I'm not challenging your argument.  Nevermore27  (talk) 20:53, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * No, "ad hominem" means "to the man" and hence refers simply to a personal attack. In the context of logical argument, the term is often used as an abbreviated form of the longer Latin phrase "argumentum ad hominem" or with the word "fallacy" implied, but the phrase "ad hominem" can simply refer to any kind of personal attack (see the second definition at ad hominem). You came here onto my personal talk page to hurl abuse at me. That was unnecessary. And now you seem determined to win an argument against me. I'm not sure why. Please keep it classy. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 19:23, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If being called pompous (which you clearly are) constitutes "hurling abuse" to you, try touching grass my man.  Nevermore27  (talk) 02:01, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Bless your heart. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 18:03, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 2022 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Michael S. Bogren for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Michael S. Bogren is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Michael S. Bogren until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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 until the discussion has finished. Let&#39;srun (talk) 19:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 2023 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)