User talk:MikkelJSmith2

Notice: I was previously User:MikkelJSmith but I lost my password.

List of federal political parties in Canada
Hi ,

I added the above section to the above linked article, but am not as good with wikitables. Would you, or, mind fixing the first two columns of the table to follow the formatting of the preceding tables?

Cheers,

--Doug Mehus T · C  18:37, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll try I'm currently on that page - MikkelJSmith2 (talk) 18:38, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, Doug Mehus, it seems you figured it out. - MikkelJSmith2 (talk) 18:43, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , Yeah, I had an extra colspan line in there. Thanks! Did you try resetting your password for ? We're allowed to have multiple accounts, but am just concerned that your first account isn't tagged to identify this as a second account. Doug Mehus T · C  18:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Doug Mehus, I've lost access to the previous account, which is why I made this one. - MikkelJSmith2 (talk) 19:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , How'd you lose access, though? I can help you try and get access again? Doug Mehus T · C  19:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , Nevertheless, I'll update your other page to say as much. Doug Mehus T · C  19:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Doug Mehus, I explain it to Ahunt here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ahunt#So_I'm_an_idiot... - MikkelJSmith2 (talk) 19:55, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , Okay, I added the disclaimer to your original account here for you so you're fully disclosed in both places. Doug Mehus T · C  19:59, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Still, I was wondering if you had an e-mail address attached to . If so, you should be able to reset your password, no? Doug Mehus T · C  20:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Doug Mehus, that's why I'm an idiot. I thought I did, but when I tried to do that, I realized that I had forgotten to do so. By the way, thanks for that, since it wasn't allowing me to edit my previous user page, probably due to the fact this new account of mine is so new. I haven't been able to edit the 2019 Canadian election page for the same reason. - MikkelJSmith2 (talk) 20:04, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , No problem., in the linked discussion, suggested an admin may be able to merge Mikkel's two accounts. Pinging you to see if you can assist. Doug Mehus  T · C  20:07, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , Yeah, it'd be nice if you can get your account merged with this one or some other option to reset your password; your other account was an extendedconfirmed user. But maybe Brad can upgrade this account for you, if he can't merge them. Doug Mehus T · C  20:09, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Doug Mehus, thank you for your help. Another admin I talked to said that he doesn't know of a way to do merge the accounts, but I think he can upgrade this one though. By the way, I didn't mean to add quotation marks in that edit I tagged you in (copy pasted your username). - MikkelJSmith2 (talk) 20:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , I tagged Brad on here because he's a super knowledgeable admin, especially helpful for new editors or editors otherwise still learning things. He's also a Clerk for the Arbitration Committee, which entitles him to have the Wikipedia Fez on his userpage. Doug Mehus T · C  20:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately there is no way to merge accounts. If you have not already done so, I suggest associating an email address so you can retain access even if you lose your password again. – bradv  🍁  20:30, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for clarifying that for him. Are you able to look in to seeing if you can upgrade his MikkelJSmith2 to extendedconfirmed? Doug Mehus T · C  20:32, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ – bradv  🍁  20:35, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , Thanks. You're awesome! :) Doug Mehus T · C  20:36, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . And don't worry, I've already done my part for the email here. - MikkelJSmith2 (talk) 20:41, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Reference date format
Hi ,

Thanks for the heads up re: reference date formats, but I have seen both date formats used. While I prefer DD MMM YYYY, I live with the MONTH DD, YEAR format as well. To me, I'm not especially concerned either way so long as it is correct. Can you point me to where it says that the latter is the preferred style?

Thanks,

--Doug Mehus T · C  20:21, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Doug Mehus, it seems I was misinformed. You are correct both can be used. - MikkelJSmith2 (talk) 20:24, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , Oh okay, I didn't know for sure. Thanks for checking. I'm fine with the date change(s) you may have made, though. Doug Mehus T · C  20:29, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Senate of Canada citation changes
Hi ,

Your citation updates at the "Current composition" section of the Senate of Canada seems to have broken the footnote 58. I tried seeing what was wrong, but it looks like the refname is correct.

If you can have a look, I'm not sure how the "efn" template works, that'd be great.

Cheers,

--Doug Mehus T · C  22:55, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I figured it out...you added the refname for the PSG reference to the CSG note. You needed to have changed that refname. I reverted your edit, which you're welcome to redo if you want the footnotes to all be "a, b, c" etc. But just make sure each reference has a different URL and a refname. Basically, two different URLs can't use the same refname. Doug Mehus T · C  22:59, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, when changing refnames, make sure you do a Ctrl+F for that refname and look for other recalled references to that refname, so you can update those as well. Hope that makes sense. Doug Mehus T · C  23:00, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Doug Mehus I fixed it. Sorry about that. - MikkelJSmith2 (talk) 23:02, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , No worries. Thanks for the fix! Doug Mehus T · C  23:05, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Senate seating plan not updating
Hi ,

I like you and appreciate greatly your contributions, your updating the seating plan, and everything that you do, but I wouldn't be arguing so strongly if I didn't think Huon erred in prematurely closing the "help me" request. There's something we're not doing in getting the updated seating plan to populate both on the main Commons page, in the maximized image preview, and in the thumbnails. It may be showing up in other places, but not everywhere. When updated the seating plan previously, it updated everywhere. That's why I think Huon prematurely short-circuited the discussion to close a "help me" request (which was odd since it was the only one open at the time) instead of trying to explain to us, thoroughly, what we were missing.

Hope that helps,

--Doug Mehus T · C  15:52, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Everything OK?
Hi ,

I just thought I'd drop you a quick note to make sure everything was OK and that you weren't upset with me (see preceding comment on this talkpage). I just really feel like Huon closed the "help me" request far too prematurely and without adequately addressing the reason for why the Senate seating plan image was not updated in all places.

Anyway, did you see the latest CTV news article in which Sen. Doug Mehus T · C  20:29, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Cheers,

--Doug Mehus T · C  20:29, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , don't worry I'm not upset. There's no bad blood like at all. Did the purging gadget work? As for the news article I'll read it later I haven't seen it yet. MikkelJSmith (talk) 20:38, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , just wanted to add that I understand your frustrations too by the way. Something wasn't working and you were looking for a solution. MikkelJSmith (talk) 20:39, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, I just forgot to reply to the previous message on my talk page. MikkelJSmith (talk) 20:39, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Cool tip - pronoun "they" template
Hi ,

Over in an RfD discussion, administrator Thryduulf referred me to the they template that can be used in combination with an editor or administrator's username and it'll automatically insert the appropriate gender pronoun. BDD and I suspect it's pulling from the "Internationalisation" section of one's "Preferences," but, having said, there's also a Category:Male Wikipedians (and related categories) with userboxes you can use on your userpage to publicly identify yourself in a certain way. I chose the one that also displays my age on my own userpage. Anyway, back to the tagging, you would use an applicable template like "they", "them", etc., and tag the user like they would return "he" because I've identified my pronoun.

Cheers,

--Doug Mehus T · C  15:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the info, didn't know that. Btw, it seems we have a new speaker. I wasn't expecting that tbh. I thought Geoff would be re-elected. MikkelJSmith (talk) 18:31, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , I thought it could go either way. I'd forgotten that the Speaker's election uses a preferential ballot (which, interestingly, is what I favour for electing MPs). So, the Conservatives, and likely one other party, ranked Regan last (or near last) on their ballot. It's a soft rebuke of the Liberals; would've been nice, though, to see an Opposition Speaker! Imagine a BQ Speaker!? Doug Mehus T · C  19:14, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , it seems the CPC ranked Regan last : https://www.burnabynow.com/liberal-mp-anthony-rota-upsets-regan-to-become-speaker-in-minority-parliament-1.24028433. I should probably add that somewhere. MikkelJSmith (talk) 22:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems the story has been updated. It used to feature this sentence : Conservatives say he has them to thank for beating out fellow Liberal Geoff Regan, who had been Speaker during the last session of Parliament and wanted to continue. MikkelJSmith (talk) 22:21, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * So, I guess I can't really put that somewhere since the info is gone and I doubt it would have been saved on the Wayback Machine, since it was such a short window of time. MikkelJSmith (talk) 22:24, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, it seems NP has the original article : https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/speech-from-the-throne-liberals-seek-common-ground-with-opposition-parties MikkelJSmith (talk) 00:03, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , Yeah, I think it would be worthy of including in the Anthony Rota article, the Speaker of the House of Commons article, and the article for the 43rd Canadian Parliament. Doug Mehus T · C  00:38, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , I'll probably do so later, I'm busy right now. MikkelJSmith (talk) 01:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , No rush. Wikipedia has no deadlines. ;) Doug Mehus T · C  16:31, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , I updated Rota's article, but I don't really see where I could put it on the Speaker page or on the 43rd Parliament page. MikkelJSmith (talk) 20:20, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Two things
Firstly, WP:REDLINK does not mean that every person's name in an article always gets to be a presumptive redlink just in case they someday become notable enough to get a Wikipedia article. Mark Mulroney can be left redlinked if you can show hard evidence that he already clears our notability standards and just doesn't have an article yet, but he does not get to stay a redlink in perpetuity just because there's a possibility that he might become more notable in the future than he is today.

Secondly, we don't care if a Twitter tweet is from God herself — Twitter is always an inherently unreliable and invalid source for Wikipedia content regardless of who does or doesn't tweet it. Stuff that Globe and Mail journalists publish in The Globe and Mail is obviously valid sourcing for Wikipedia content — but stuff they say on their own time on social networking platforms is not. It has nothing to do with who's tweeting it — it has to do with the fact that the platform is not a reliable media outlet. You have to show a news article which discusses Marilyn Gladu's potential candidacy before you can add her to the list, not a tweet. Bearcat (talk) 19:33, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , the RS page disagress with you. It says that if it's verified or from a trusted person Twitter can be used. As for REDLINK, I was mostly following some guidelines another user told me about it. MikkelJSmith (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The only thing RS says about acceptable use of Twitter is that you're allowed to use an article subject's own Twitter account as a source for basic biographical facts about themselves — for example, if a notable person tweets "happy birthday to me!" on their birthday, then you're allowed to use their tweet as a source for their birthdate. RS very definitely does not say that just any tweet from any verified account is acceptable — "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material." In other words, the only place a tweet from Marieke Walsh would ever be an acceptable source is in an article about Marieke Walsh (if we had one), and even then only for statements about herself. Bearcat (talk) 21:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , I see we were referring to different pages. This is what Wikipedia policy says regarding Twitter specifically : In most cases, Twitter accounts should only be cited if they are verified accounts or if the user's identity is confirmed in some way.
 * This would apply to that Walsh tweet, since we know she's a journalist and since her identity is confirmed to be someone from a trusted publication. We can use her tweets. I've had this discussion with multiple editors and that's what the conclusion always was. Although some of the discussions were on my old account, which I no longer have access to. MikkelJSmith (talk) 22:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * What page says that, exactly? It's certainly not in WP:RS. And it's definitely wrong that as long as the tweet comes from a "verified" Twitter user it counts as a reliable source — obviously given the proliferation of parody and impersonation accounts a Twitter account has to be verified before we can use it, but that doesn't actually change the fact that the only acceptable use for a Twitter tweet as sourcing in Wikipedia is for a person's own self-published biographical claims about themselves in their own BLP about themselves. Bearcat (talk) 22:48, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , It's from here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Sources It's what 20+ discussions on Twitter have given as a conclusion. MikkelJSmith (talk) 22:56, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Did you miss the parts of that where it explicitly says that even a verified Twitter account can still only be used as sourcing for "an uncontroversial self-description", and that "Twitter should never be used for third-party claims related to living persons"? Bearcat (talk) 22:58, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , when looking at discussions on the topic, they usually allow legitimate accounts' tweet as reliable. So, the tweet would still pass as reliable. MikkelJSmith (talk) 23:02, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Example that are given are tweets from people working for trusted publications. MikkelJSmith (talk) 23:02, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not consistent with our reliable source rules, however: the rules clearly state that the only acceptable use of Twitter tweets as sourcing is for a person's own self-published and non-notability-impacting biographical claims about themselves in their own BLPs. And I don't know what private discussions you might have had with other people in user talk space, but I can't find any discussion in Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources or its archives which says any different — all the discussions I can see there still say that Twitter can be used only for people's own self-published claims about themselves, and not to support any information about a third party other than the tweeter. Bearcat (talk) 23:10, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , what I'm talking about are seen in the discussions for Twitter (it's next to Twitter on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Sources). Editors have consistently argued that using a tweet from someone that is related to the work, from a trusted publication or is a verified user works. So, in essence, they've followed the rule I mentioned earlier.
 * I'll tag since he's the one that told me that Tweets from reliable sources are fine and he's very knowledgeable of wikipedia policy. MikkelJSmith (talk) 23:17, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Except that as I've already pointed out, what Reliable sources/Perennial sources actually says about Twitter is consistent with what I've said about it: even verified Twitter accounts are still acceptable for use only to support people's own basic biographical information about themselves in their own BLPs, and never for information about a third party. You explicitly said there have been other discussions that established that it's generally interpreted more liberally than what it says, which is precisely why I'm trying to find any evidence of talk page discussions that support that interpretation — but I can't find any such discussions that support anything other than what RS and RSPS literally say, which is "only for a person's claims about themselves, and not for their statements about other people". Bearcat (talk) 23:22, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , the discussions are literally right next to the Twitter name on the page I linked. There are 35 of them. MikkelJSmith (talk) 23:23, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Which is the same talk page discussions I'm talking about: they still uphold "even verified Twitter accounts can still only be used to support people's own biographical claims about themselves, and not information about third parties", and I have yet to see even one discussion in that bunch that says otherwise. Bearcat (talk) 23:29, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , Here are some examples :
 * 1) You could make the argument that @SNPBonnyLoan and @ValeofLevenSNP are the official accounts of the SNP branches, although you'd need to confirm the legitimacy of the accounts in some way, because they aren't Twitter-verified. Links to the accounts from the official websites of the SNP or the branches would probably work. If you can show that these Twitter accounts are the official accounts, that would make their tweets usable
 * 2) "t]hese two Twitter accounts have repeatedly been confirmed to be the actual crew members (posting photos of themselves and of production, interacting with other verified accounts, etc.) In terms of WP:RS, there is no reasonable doubt at all that they're the people they're representing". Of course, someone should look at WP:RSP's Twitter entry and see if anyone agrees with me that it should satisfy the "if the user's identity is confirmed in some way" part. (The identity-confirmed-in-some-way part makes it very clear that just not having blue-tick won't make it non-RS), so we should also keep track of all of these kinds of Twitters on a separate page. Lots of famous people (can't bother to name who) don't even have a blue-tick. Even the director of Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse took a long time to get one, and by the time his "not having a blue mark" problem had been brought up on Mashable, he had directed an Oscar-winning animated film that made $375.5 million) If it doesn't work, someone ask VW and PT to apply for the blue tick. "
 * 3) the user's identity should be confirmed in some way (e.g. the Twitter account is verified or linked from the person/organization's official website).
 * 4)If its nielson ratings from a nielson verified account then its a primary source and can be used accordingly.
 * There were others too. MikkelJSmith (talk) 23:38, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I just gave the first few that I found. MikkelJSmith (talk) 23:38, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * And exactly which of those discussions pertained to making third party claims about a living person? #1, 2 and 4 clearly pertain to institutional accounts making organizational claims about themselves and/or their own proprietary data, not individual people making third party biographical claims about other people; and #3 means nothing without any additional information about the context it came up in, because even the acceptable uses of Twitter as sourcing still require verification as a core precept. The rule still is exactly as both RS and RSPS explicitly say: people or institutions with verified Twitter handles can have their tweets cited as support for their own self-published biographical or corporate information about themselves, and not as support for third party claims about other people besides the owner of the Twitter handle. The rule really does mean exactly what it says, and none of those quotes prove that it doesn't. Bearcat (talk) 23:52, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , #1 is talking about MPs, #2 is talking crew members making a claim about something else... The only one mentioning an institution is #4. MikkelJSmith (talk) 00:07, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Political parties are organizations, whose institutional twitter accounts are used to post information about themselves and their operations — the fact that a tweet may happen to name one of the party caucus's members in the process of being party-related organizational information is not violating the rule, as that still falls under the rubric of an organization tweeting organizational information about itself. Crew members of a television production, if they have verified accounts for the purposes of even being up for discussion, are tweeting on behalf of the show, not on behalf of themselves as individuals, and the thing they're tweeting about is the show that employs them, not another person — so that too falls in the "organizational information being tweeted by an account that is directly affiliated with that organization" bucket, not the "third party biographical claims about another person" bucket. Bearcat (talk) 13:30, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , I looked up a talk page discussion from the 2019 discussion and the argument was used their too :
 * Quick question, do Journalists' tweets count as references. Sometimes, they tell details that aren't in the actual articles weirdly enough. JonathanScotty (talk) 20:24, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * As long as they are actually from published journalists then they can be used as per WP:SPS. - 20:26, 14 September 2019 (UTC) MikkelJSmith (talk) 15:19, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Political parties are organizations, whose institutional twitter accounts are used to post information about themselves and their operations — the fact that a tweet may happen to name one of the party caucus's members in the process of being party-related organizational information is not violating the rule, as that still falls under the rubric of an organization tweeting organizational information about itself. Crew members of a television production, if they have verified accounts for the purposes of even being up for discussion, are tweeting on behalf of the show, not on behalf of themselves as individuals, and the thing they're tweeting about is the show that employs them, not another person — so that too falls in the "organizational information being tweeted by an account that is directly affiliated with that organization" bucket, not the "third party biographical claims about another person" bucket. Bearcat (talk) 13:30, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , I looked up a talk page discussion from the 2019 discussion and the argument was used their too :
 * Quick question, do Journalists' tweets count as references. Sometimes, they tell details that aren't in the actual articles weirdly enough. JonathanScotty (talk) 20:24, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * As long as they are actually from published journalists then they can be used as per WP:SPS. - 20:26, 14 September 2019 (UTC) MikkelJSmith (talk) 15:19, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * As long as they are actually from published journalists then they can be used as per WP:SPS. - 20:26, 14 September 2019 (UTC) MikkelJSmith (talk) 15:19, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

As noted in Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources and also WP:SPS, Twitter or other self-published material can be used as a source if the person is an acknowledged subject matter expert who has been published in that subject area previously. It does add "Twitter should never be used for third-party claims related to living persons." But if a published journalist interviews someone who says that they are running or not running for public office and then journalist then publishes that on Twitter, that is admissible, as it is not a "third-party claim". Keep in mind that anything significant reported by a journalist on Twitter at the time an event happens will almost always end up on the news website (or newspaper) within 24 hours, too. - Ahunt (talk) 15:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Andrew Scheer's status
Having re-read over the sources. It appears that Scheer's resignation as party leader on December 12, was effective immediately. Unlike the usual practice, he didn't choose to remain as leader until the party chose a permanent successor. This necessitated the party caucus to chose an interim leader, until a permanent one was chosen & they chose Scheer. This is a very rare situation in Canadian politics, indeed. Note- When Joe Clark resigned (effective immediately) in 1983 as Progressive Conservative leader, to bring about a new Leadership convention (in which he was a candidate - running for his former job), someone else was chosen as interim leader. GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , so that explains it. MikkelJSmith (talk) 16:37, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yup. GoodDay (talk) 16:38, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Anyways, I've raised the topic at Andrew Scheer & Conservative Party of Canada articles, as well as at WP:CANADA. GoodDay (talk) 16:32, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * and, I would call Andrew Scheer Leader of the Official Opposition and Parliamentary Leader for the Conservative caucus. He only resigned as Conservative Party Leader. His status is the same as Elizabeth May except he's also still Leader of the Official Opposition (a parliamentary role). Doug Mehus T · C  17:06, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * So we go with interim leader of the CPC. GoodDay (talk) 17:09, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the input, could you write this on the 44th Canadian federal election talk page that's where the sources and the main discussion is occurring. I would ask that you look at the sources too, since they contradict each other. MikkelJSmith (talk) 17:11, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I'll abide by the result of the Rfc, no matter what that turns out to be. GoodDay (talk) 17:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , me too. It would arrogant not to. MikkelJSmith (talk) 17:46, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Violation of editing restrictions on Media coverage of Bernie Sanders
This edit is a violation of both of these editing restrictions:


 * Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period).
 * 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). Partial reverts/reinstatements that reasonably address objections of other editors are preferable to wholesale reverts.

You should self-revert immediately. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:10, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , probably wasn't aware of what WP:1RR sanctions are, or what articles are subject to those restrictions. I'm sure he'll revert the edit, or someone else can just revert it tomorrow some time. I have complete faith in 's abilities. Doug Mehus  T · C  02:04, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , I reverted it earlier. It was a mistake. This was actually my first time encountering that. I'll talk about the change on the talk page tomorrow though. MikkelJSmith (talk) 02:07, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Closing discussions
Hi MikkelJSmith2. I noticed you closed some discussions on Talk:Media coverage of Bernie Sanders. In doing so, please be mindful of WP:ACD and WP:RFCCLOSE. Editors who are involved with an article should usually not close RfCs about those articles. If the close in uncontroversial, most editors will look the other way per WP:IAR, but if there is a perception that you may have an opinion about the discussion that you have closed, it can ruffle some feathers. - MrX 🖋 15:09, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , I didn't know those policies. I started closing stuff earlier this week. But, I closed discussions where I wasn't involved though (on that talk page). MikkelJSmith (talk) 15:12, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * So, I guess most would count as uncontroversial no? As for my edits, I've mostly been neutral on most of the stuff. I just have some disagreements on some stuff here and there. MikkelJSmith (talk) 15:13, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I didn't see any that were a problem. - MrX 🖋 16:00, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , unrelated, but do you know how to archive stuff? I've been looking at how to do so for my talk page. MikkelJSmith (talk) 16:03, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Create an archive subpage, move the material in there. The little box code is on my talk page, be free to steal it.-- Will C  16:18, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I manually archive my talk page quarterly to subpages of my user page. An easier way is to simply use User:lowercase sigmabot III. - MrX 🖋 16:20, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

You're completely misinterpreting Ahunt's response
. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:57, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Not really, since they replied to you that it works in case of what you wrote too - MikkelJSmith (talk) 16:07, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * What? Are you serious? You seriously do not comprehend? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You keep telling everyone that you are a good-faith editor. Why do you then keep insisting that there has to be consensus for the removal of newly added content challenged by multiple editors when that is completely and utterly wrong? At what point are you going to admit having misunderstood Wikipedia policy and self-revert on the Media coverage of Bernie Sanders page? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:56, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * There has been no consensus when looking at the discussion, it's half-half. MikkelJSmith (talk) 17:59, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Consensus on/for what? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:00, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the 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. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:38, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk page
If you could direct me to the talk page where the consensus was made, that would be greatly appreciated! I am trying my best to point out an area where we disagree; i. e. no consensus, and talk about it as Wikipedia pages instruct...sorry I'm kind of new at this About Nationwide opinion polling for the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries: I cannot find any talk page nor any "consensus" that indicates that debate lines should be included on the graph focused on polling percentages over time by various candidates. I certainly do not share in this "consensus" and think the lines should not be present for 4 reasons. 1. The lines muddle the graph by adding another component for the reader to interpret. The lines distract from the main message--a comparison between candidates' polling over time. 2. The debates are arbitrary demarcations put on the graph, and none of the rest of that article discusses the debates. 3. According to the political & sports analytics website 538, the debates rarely have any meaningful impact on polling. 4. The lines are an ugly color & make the graph less visually appealing. Please let me know what actions I can take to correct this graph other than removing these lines & communicating my concerns at the time of removal (and now communicating my concerns directly to you)! Thanks!!
 * It's located in the top left corner of each Wikipedia page. - MikkelJSmith (talk) 03:37, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Friendly tip re: reFill script
or can correct me if I'm wrong, but I've noticed you using reFill to fill in citation references that didn't need it, like this one. In that one, the reference was recalling a named reference, so didn't technically need to have the full citation information entered again. I suppose it's probably fine to fill it in anyway, but just not necessary. Not a big deal or anything and, again, if I'm wrong, I'll stand corrected. ;)

Happy editing,

--Doug Mehus T · C  21:43, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I've no knowledge on those things. GoodDay (talk) 21:45, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think you're mistaken? It removed the ref there, it just kept the name. MikkelJSmith (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * By the way, does anyone know why ReFill doesn't work for the CBC's links? I'm trying to use it for the 2020 CPC leadership page but it doesn't detect them. MikkelJSmith (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , Hrm, that's strange. I'm not sure, really, but I've noticed on many article pages the ProveIt gadget doesn't show up for me in the bottom right hand corner. You could try posting a request in a new section in your own talkpage or posting at The Teahouse. Doug Mehus  T · C  21:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , You're right, per this. My bad, Mikkel. Doug Mehus  T · C  21:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

The PSG lives
Maybe you've seen the news already, but: the PSG got another floor crosser today, bringing them to 9 members— and thus official status again. We did indeed do well to keep them listed as a caucus. — Kawnhr (talk)
 * It was a good idea. I will probably end up updating the map (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_senators_of_Canada#/media/File:Senate_of_Canada_-_Seating_Plan_By_Province.svg) soon. That and opinion polls are mostly what I do on Wikipedia these days. I'm a lot less active. I do participate in page discussions though. - MikkelJSmith (talk) 14:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Senate of Canada
Hi, wanted to ask you whether there were any further thoughts regarding this discussion of your reverts on Senate of Canada. I started writing on the talk page there, but changed my mind and thought I'd check in here. I'd like to do some more work on the page, but feel hindered by the specter of being reverted once again. --Cornellier (talk) 10:54, 16 July 2021 (UTC)