User talk:Nevermore27/Archive 1

Political party strength in Vermont
Hi Nevermore27, Thank you for your recent contributions to Political party strength in Vermont. You appear to be knowledgable in the subject. However, without a reference that supports your edit and the edit of every other contributor to the page, it's impossible to know whether a given contribution is valid, or not. You could be a guiding light to others by providing references for your last two contributions! Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 15:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

US Attorneys
Hi, Nevermore27! I see you recently editing a whole slew of district court articles with "(added U.S. Attorney to infobox)." Can you justify this? The United States Attorney for a district is not part of its Court. (It's often true that they have an office in the same building as the Court or Courthouse, but that is not the same thing.) My inclination is that these edits are incorrect and should be reverted, but I wanted to discuss it with you first. Thanks! (Or maybe we should talk about it somewhere else?) jhawkinson (talk) 22:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * My thought was that District Courts and U.S. Attorneys are assigned to exactly the same districts; they are coterminous. Any suit filed against the federal government in any district court will be defended by that district's U.S. Attorney or his/her office. Any suit filed by the government against a citizen in a particular district will be prosecuted by that district's U.S. Attorney. While you are correct they are not the same office, they are inextricably linked. Many if not most of the pages for the Courts already list the U.S. Attorney. I just thought it would be better if they were included in the infobox.
 * They are indeed coterminous. I'm not sure it's true that any suit against the government will be defended by that district's US Attorney; while an AUSA almost always enters an appearance, it's fairly common for lead counsel to be from other parts of the DOJ. In any event, they are linked, but not inextricably. The links are quite "extricable" -- they are well-defined and breakable. I agree that some pages list the US Attorney. But that doesn't mean the US Attorney is an attribute of the Court, which is what placement in the Infobox implies. So, I guess...I am not convinced. But we should probably seek another opinion? I suppose perhaps on Template talk:Infobox U.S. district court with a referral from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law? Do you have other suggestions on how to resolve this, or a more convincing argument, or a better choice of venue for the discussion? Thanks. jhawkinson (talk) 07:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't come up with a different argument that could convince you, but I agree it's not going to be decided by you and I alone.
 * Well, you may be more optimistic than I. It could well be that no one else is interested, in which case it would be decided by you and I. In the absence of better venue suggestions I suppose I'll write something up tomorrow (US/Eastern). Incidently, Ibrahim v. Department of Homeland et al (3:06-cv-00545 in cand) appears to be an example of a suit against the federal government with no appearance by the local USA (though they were summonsed), but only by some DOJ folks from DC. Not that it really matters. jhawkinson (talk) 07:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Done, with this discussion mirrored there. jhawkinson (talk) 19:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Why do you keep removing the Libertarian candidate from the KY 2014 Election page?
Why do you keep removing the Libertarian candidate from United States Senate election in Kentucky, 2014 ? According to sample ballots from Kentucky Secretary of State sample ballots for 2014 David Patterson is the Libertarian Party candidate and is on the ballot.

Removing candidates, no matter their party, poll numbers, or likelyhood of winning or losing is a disservice to users seeking information about the election and the campaign.

It also appears that there is a strong risk of edit warring and thats not helpful to anyone. Can you explain why you keep removing the Libertarian candidate? Can you cite a Wikipedia policy justifying this edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freiheit2014 (talk • contribs) 03:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm unaware of a specific rule, but there's a guideline of 5%, as evidenced by the Template:US Third Party Election where only performances over 5% are listed. Whether we like it or not, we live in a two-party system, and it's hard for a third party to break through that. No one is suppressing information, all of Patterson's information and links to his website are preserved on the page, but the infobox should reflect the reality that McConnell and Grimes are the only candidates who are going to truly matter to the election's outcome.  Nevermore27  (talk) 04:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Now that Patterson is above 5% again, are you going to replace him in the top infographic? Patterson's polling is also greater than the margin between these two candidates, so the idea that he is irrelevant to the outcome is incorrect as well. Bnewmark42 (talk) 02:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If there's another poll with him above 5%, I'll replace him myself. Only three points of data make a pattern. He's polled at 5% in two now.  Nevermore27  (talk) 17:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Your ani posting
As ANI is a high visibility page, posting links to your being doxed may not be want you want. See WP:OVERSIGHT to contact the folks who can make the edit go away from almost everyone's sight.

Also, please see WP:SIGLINK -- your signature needs to contain link(s) to your user, talk, or contributions page. NE Ent 03:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I also emailed Oversight, thank you.  Nevermore27  (talk) 04:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Global account
Hi Nevermore27! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 17:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Recent edit to United States House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you removed some content from United States House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you!  Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  09:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Gamrat
I see you've made some changes to the composition template for the Michigan House. I was going to do something, but was wondering how to do it. The Democratic field also needs to be divided as Harvey Santana was also expelled from his caucus earlier in the year. But, I also wonder if maybe we shouldn't do anymore than simply put an astericks by each of the numbers and add a footnote since while these two are expelled from their caucuses, neither has stopped caucusing with their respective party? This isn't like Olumba in the previous session who seperated himself from the caucus. This banishment seems to only apply to daily caucus meetings. What do you think? --Criticalthinker (talk) 07:52, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't know about Santana, and I would do the same thing with him as with Gamrat. The shading part doesn't necessarily refer to voting power, because theoretically on any issue any member of the House could vote against his party for any reason. It refers to the caucuses. So noting their separation from the caucus is important.  Nevermore27  (talk) 08:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Democrat(ic)
Thank you for the bulk corrections. What is this Democrat term out of tense? It seems to be a Rush Limbaugh epithet form of usage that has found its way into wikipedia. Trackinfo (talk) 19:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep Trackinfo, check out Democrat Party (epithet)  Nevermore27  (talk) 21:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I was thinking there needed to be an article about a developing situation. Obviously since it originated in 1940, there is. Trackinfo (talk) 22:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Message
I am sorry. The "welcome" message is automatically generated by the tool. An IP has been playing around with the "chief justice" designation on and off for some time. I misread your edit as just one more in the series. Sorry again. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:12, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries. Apologies for reacting so strongly. Capitalismojo  Nevermore27  (talk) 22:22, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Political party strength in Massachusetts#Merge or separate the terms of re-elected politicians?
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Political party strength in Massachusetts. Thanks. —GoldRingChip 11:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Michigan House Composition Change
Hey, I see that you were the last one to update the composition of the Michigan House. I tried updating it, myself, but can't for the life of me figure out the column/row template. Can you add the resignation of Brandon Dillon (http://woodtv.com/2015/08/03/dillon-resigns-from-house-to-head-mi-dems/) as of August 3? It should show 45/1 for Democrats with one vacancy. For the time being, the Republican caucus is still the same, though that could be changing very soon (possible two vacancies). Thanks. Hopefully, after you update it I'll be able to see what you did. --Criticalthinker (talk) 13:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Done! Criticalthinker  Nevermore27  (talk) 22:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Please don't remove content from pages...
...without explaining why. Krett12 (talk) 13:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Repeating reverted edit
You deleted info in the Icelandic presidential election, 2016 that I had previously reinserted. If you want to repeat an edit that has been reverted by a registered user and with an explanation you should discuss it at the talk page, not just repeat your edit.--Batmacumba (talk) 21:28, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You and I appear to be the only people making repeated edits to the page, so putting it on the Talk page would not solve anything. The information you wish to include on the page is irrelevant. Yes, the Left-Green Movement is a relatively small party, but it is still a party with representation in the Althingi, so Katrín is relevant no matter what. The fact that she led several polls is irrelevant considering she's not running. And the clause "but has declared she will not run" is triply pointless seeing as she is under the "Declined" heading. I will add a polling table so her past poll leads can be shown, but information that is preempted by subsequent events is not relevant.  Nevermore27  (talk) 17:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I have moved you answer over here, as there is no reason to answer it on my page when I first raised the issue over here. It is obviously not irrelevant that she was the leading candidate before she declined - and the debate about wether it is or not it does belong on the talk page as it is related to the article and others might have an opinion. It is generally unhelpful to remove info you personally find "irrelevant" as it is subjective and such info can be useful to others.--Batmacumba (talk) 19:07, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Batmacumba, The way to show that Katrín was leading polls before her exit is to have a Polling section; it does not belong in the section where it shows that she has already left the race. It's not a question of relevant or irrelevant, it's where on the page the information properly belongs.  Nevermore27  (talk) 22:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Viðreisn
Why did you move Viðreisn to Restoration? (which is just one possible translation chosen by a Wiki editor and not an official English name). It was mentioned on the talk page that the name isn't official and there was a note in the text that it should be replaced whether was an "official English name". I think it should be moved back until they decide on an official English name (there are other possibilities: Awakening, Renaissance, Rising Again, Rebirth). Its generally better to discuss page moves before you make them--Batmacumba (talk) 12:35, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Edit summaries
I noted your recent edit to Nebraska gubernatorial election, 1990. As best I can tell, your change consisted solely of rearranging the sections, collecting all the material on the Democratic primary into one section and all the material on the Republican primary into another.

I'm inclined to agree with your plan of organization (and wish I'd thought of it first!) However, I have to complain about the fact that you didn't leave an edit summary. Looking at your contribution history, I see that you generally don't. I'd like to urge you to change your practice.

Unfortunately, articles on political subjects tend to draw lots of problem edits—vandalism, POV-pushing, and WP:NOTNEWS violations among them. For us article-watchers, failure to include an edit summary is a red flag: it can be a sign of an editor who's trying to change the article without drawing the attention of other editors, or the mark of a new editor who's not familiar with Wikipolicy and doesn't know about WP:SOAP. A brief explanation of what you're doing can save these article-watchers the time and effort that they'd otherwise have to devote to checking out your edit in detail.

Again, I've got no problem at all with your edit to the 1990 election article; I think it works better than my original organizing scheme. However, a concise edit summary like "Reorganized sections" wouldn't have taken much of your time, and would've saved me the time I spent going through the diff in detail. — Ammodramus (talk) 21:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up Ammodramus! I will try to explain myself in the future :)  Nevermore27  (talk) 22:01, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Iceland 2016 parliamentary election polls for august?
Since you've provided many of the poll numbers on the Icelandic_parliamentary_election,_2016 page, I wonder if you know why there seems to be a sudden cut-off in polls for the 2015 parliamentary election in Iceland after the end of July? I haven't found any more recent numbers with a web search either, so I wonder if there is some prohibition against polls X months before the election or something. Anyway, if new numbers become available, I would be happy to update the graph. Amaurea (talk) 18:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Amaurea, the only source for polls I have is electograph, and the last poll I saw through there was July 29, so I'm also unclear why there's a bit of a poll desert right now. As far as I know there's not ban on polls at present, if at all. I'll certainly update as soon as I see them. User:Batmacumba is also pretty on top of the Iceland situation, not sure if you've also contacted them.  Nevermore27  (talk) 08:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


 * There are no ban on polling in Iceland at any time (such bans would be unheard of in all Scandinavian countries and considered an infringement on free speech). Only Gallup and MMR poll the Althing election regularly (both approximately once a month). The University of Iceland, Maskina and Fréttablaðið only do polls when there is something interesting going on (and that isn't the case right now). The last Gallup and MMR polls are from late July, so we will presumably get new ones very soon.--Batmacumba (talk) 20:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from United States Senate Committee on Armed Services into Historical member rosters of the United States Committee on Armed Services. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 15:41, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Message left by User Batmacumba
Chop of genitals and bleed to death you worthless sack of shit. --Batmacumba (talk) 00:02, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Comma
See WP:JR. It is not true that ''Standard for Srs. and Jrs. is to put a comma''. Dicklyon (talk) 03:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Dicklyon Whoops! Sorry about that, thanks.  Nevermore27  (talk) 03:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No prob. Dicklyon (talk) 04:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Left you a note on my rv; please feel free to rv once data is correct
I reverted just for prevention 'cuz my data is accurate. Once you reincorporate the correct data please feel free to switch back to the old format (and use this message as reference if anyone complains about an edit war). &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * feel free to correct me, but I'm pretty sure I used your exact data and referred to it constantly while I was building the new table, so it should match?  Nevermore27  (talk) 01:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope, check the House from 1969–1973 for instance. I remember I had to go quadrennial by quadrennial and several were innacurate. The data for the Senate is available in the cell header for 'Senate' in my format. &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:36, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok I messed up a number here and there, that could have been fixed by changing the number, not reversing the whole format.  Nevermore27  (talk) 01:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

September 2017
Hello, I'm Dennis Bratland. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Seattle mayoral election, 2017 seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. ''You are removing the only information about Republican, or right-of center candidates from an article with copious detail about Democrats and other left-of-center candidates. This has a blatantly biased appearance. '' Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You are, again, wrong. I removed everything about political positions while keeping neutral descriptors intact. Nothing whatsoever to do with partisan affiliation.  Nevermore27  (talk) 21:39, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The thread is Any mention in article Seattle mayoral election, 2017 of Republican candidates' positions. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Washington State Senate
Because election results aren't certified until late November and the newly elected official doesn't take office until December, the Washington State Senate doesn't change its composition until then, meaning Dino Rossi is still serving as State Senator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UWHuskyFan (talk • contribs) 08:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * a) I understand b) sign your comments  Nevermore27  (talk) 08:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the tip! I never knew you could sign posts until now, so I appreciate the help --UWHuskyFan (talk) 08:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)UWHuskyFan

Nomination for deletion of Template:Progressive Party (Vermont)/row
Template:Progressive Party (Vermont)/row has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 16:20, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:United States Senate elections, 2016 and 2017
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:United States Senate elections, 2016 and 2017. —GoldRingChip 12:43, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

1915 Arkansas
The Senate election in Arkansas that should have been in 1914 was, instead, held in 1915. How should United States Senate elections, 1914 be edited?—GoldRingChip 18:36, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That could certainly be considered a special case, but I think it should just be noted as you did here.  Nevermore27  (talk) 18:37, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

April 2018
Your recent editing history at United States Senate Committee on Appropriations 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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. Doug Cousins (talk) 10:50, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

As an aside, are you supporting Cynthia Nixon for NY Governor? Doug Cousins (talk) 10:50, 11 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Note more recent article by roll call "A floor resolution reorganizing the Appropriations panel was expected on the floor later on Tuesday, which aides said would likely be adopted by unanimous consent." No published source indicates this floor resolution has passed.

https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/richard-shelby-officially-senate-appropriations-chairman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Cousins (talk • contribs) 11:07, 11 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I love how you decided that it's me who's doing the edit warring, when it's clearly you who is undoing my work instead of vice versa. S. Res. 456, "A resolution to constitute the majority party's membership on certain committees for the One Hundred Fifteenth Congress, or until their successors are chosen." was agreed to by unanimous consent on Tuesday April 10. Proof enough for you?  Nevermore27  (talk) 20:03, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see how my allegiance in the NY-Gov primary is relevant.
 * You made predictions just about everywhere else. Why always so partisan? Doug Cousins (talk) 22:08, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm a gay man, I was raised by a single mother, my sister is a teacher and my boyfriend is a Mexican American; only one party believes in the civil and political rights of myself and the people I love, so I feel like my "partisanship" is completely justified. And again, completely irrelevant to the discussion we're having, so I don't know why you're even asking.  Nevermore27  (talk) 22:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Peter Thiel would disagree & Raul Labrador is a gem (to be fair so is Raul Grijalva).. Hyperpartisanism is problematic; both parties have good and bad issues. Do you like low taxes? Do you like legal immigration? I'm curious about the mindset of someone who wants to make a super gross Shelby official as quickly as possible. Republicans being against single mothers and teachers is a new one. Though I admit my 'warning' was perhaps a step too far. Doug Cousins (talk) 22:31, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no affinity for Shelby, I just like to make sure Wiki pages are as accurate as possible as soon as possible. I'm going to leave it there.  Nevermore27  (talk) 01:02, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You did the 3 reverts. Still no official announcements from McConnell, etc nor an official senate vote on the subject. Weird.. Doug Cousins (talk) 22:08, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It's on the committee website now, so it's about as official as it gets.  Nevermore27  (talk) 22:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Conor Lamb Term Start Date
You wrote: "U.S. law states that Representatives elected in special elections assume office the day of the election" as you undid a revision to Conor Lamb on the puzzling dispute regarding now-U.S. Representative Conor Lamb's term commencement date.

Which law?

There are a few sources to support otherwise, such as federal law, Article Six of the United States Constitution, and even the House of Representatives itself (which maintains a guide showing that a Member-Elect becomes a Member once he has taken the oath of office)

To recap, a person has not begun a Congressional term simply because: (a) He is the presumptive winner of an election; (b) The election results have been certified in his favor; (c) He's going to be a Member of Congress; (d) I support him and want him to win; or (e) Any combination of the above.

Conor Lamb began his Congressional term on April 12, 2018 in accordance with federal law, the Constitution, and the rules of the House of Representatives. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 17:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * At one point or another I was lead to believe that winners of special elections started earning their federal pay as of the date of the special election. And to em (and others), that was as good as "assuming office" vs. the actual taking of the oath. Now admittedly looking over the code now I can't find proof of that, so whatever, I'm wrong. But I resent the implication that I want his term to have started earlier just because I like and support Rep. Lamb. That has nothing to do with anything, I like accurate information. I suggest you look at the section just above this for corroboration of that ethos of mine. Cool your attitude, buddy.  Nevermore27  (talk) 01:42, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Well I’m sorry to have offended you. That was out of line. I saw open political beliefs, and I drew a conclusion needlessly. I saw it the moment I hit “Publish.”
 * There have been so many edit reverts on this issue that I’ve grown frustrated. There’s no consensus on this and seeing reversions doesn’t feel right.
 * Again, my bad. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 03:30, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress. —GoldRingChip 12:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Committee changes
You've been changing membership in several Congressional committees for the current (115th) Congress. Are your changes corrections to an incorrect list or is it an update as membership has changed during the Congress? If it's an update, please restore the names and indicate that they are no longer members (such as by adding ", until July 2018"). These articles are supposed to keep the historial record, not just be a list of current memberships.—GoldRingChip 12:36, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * fixed  Nevermore27  (talk) 14:34, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I only see a change to Senate Appropriations. What about the changes you made to the House Natural Resources Committee and its subcomms?—GoldRingChip 15:15, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think I even went into Senate Appropriations recently? The corrections I made were to the House Natural Resources.  Nevermore27  (talk) 16:16, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. You're right. Thanks. —GoldRingChip 16:28, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress. —GoldRingChip 12:40, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Please follow WP:BRD
Can you please stop edit-warring  and follow WP:BRD? I've posted 3 comments to you on the article talk page and you haven't even bothered to respond. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:25, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You didn't ping me, so I don't know how you expected me to just know that you invoked me in a comment. Like this:  Nevermore27  (talk) 06:18, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You should be checking talk page discussions anyway. That's what it's for.  In fact, the very first time someone reverted you, you should have been the one to start the discussion on the talk page.  But thanks for replying.  I'll reply on the article talk page. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 08:41, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Please stop edit-warring
Your recent editing history 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. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 09:13, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you please stop edit-warring and try to gain consensus for your change on the article talk page? By my count, you've reverted the same content 4(!) times.  The first time someone reverted you, you should have immediately begun a discussion on the article talk page.  Can you please self-revert? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 09:13, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You're the one who has to find consensus, since your preferred outcome is in contrast to the previous consensus reached. This discussion happens every election year, and your side always ends up losing. Minor candidates should not be given outsize coverage.  Nevermore27  (talk) 09:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * We've been discussing this on the article talk page since April. The consensus is to include all 4 candidates.  If you want to change consensus, the burden of proof is on you.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 09:22, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * 5 participants on one talk page is not consensus. As I said in our discussion, this discussion happens just about every year. It's been hashed and re-hashed umpteen times. The consensus is no minor party candidates unless they reach 5% in at least one poll.  Nevermore27  (talk) 09:25, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It is consensus for this article. See WP:OTHERSTUFF.  Every time you revert someone else's change, you are showing disrespect for your fellow editors.  The first time you were reverted, you should have immediately stopped and started a discussion on the article talk page.  Edit-warring is no way to win a content dispute.  I've already asked you several times to self-revert.  I cannot force you.  However,  if you continue to edit-war, you may be blocked. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 09:32, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * There should be a universal standard for all elections articles. As a member of WikiProject Politics I try to maintain continuity. You are inventing a standard that does not exist. You are the one edit-warring.  Nevermore27  (talk) 09:37, 25 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Knock it off. For the love of god, please stop edit-warring and gain consensus on the talk page first.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:07, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Dude, you don't have consensus either. You need to stop acting like your preferred outcome is the only one that's valid.  Nevermore27  (talk) 00:57, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, we had consensus . We discussed way back in April.  If you don't like it, that's fine.  But the burden to change consensus is on you.  Not us.  You.  Get it? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:09, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Consensus does not apply to one article at a time. Just because you got 3 people to agree with you 4 months ago doesn't overrule consensus that has been reached time and time again for almost 10 years. Your idea of consensus doesn't mean jack.  Nevermore27  (talk) 23:15, 31 July 2018 (UTC)


 * "Consensus does not apply to one article at a time" is absolutely incorrect. Unless you run an RfC that implements a policy change for an entire set of articles, consensus at individual talk pages absolutely does apply. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:21, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * When it's one part of a whole as Illinois gubernatorial election, 2018 is to United States gubernatorial elections, 2018 and all its subsidiary articles, then I absolutely think there should be a consistent standard for all articles. Also, can I help you? Who invited you to this one-on-one?  Nevermore27  (talk) 23:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ponyo, you're absolutely correct. If there is to be a community-wide standard, you need a community-wide discussion.  If and when consensus is reached, the results are formalized in a policy or guideline that the whole community can follow.  As best I can tell, there is no policy or guideline about this alleged 5% rule.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:12, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Canvassing warning for Illinois gubernatorial election, 2018
It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Illinois gubernatorial election, 2018. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. See: --Elephanthunter (talk) 04:59, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I didn't know this policy existed, so thank you for bringing it to my attention.  Nevermore27  (talk) 05:09, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Pennsylvania's 7th and 15th congressional district special elections, 2018
You are invited to join the discussion at Pennsylvania's 7th and 15th congressional district special elections, 2018. —GoldRingChip 22:04, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussion on Libertarian candidate in Virginia senate race article
Hey, I noticed you have edited the United States Senate election in Virginia, 2018, and just wanted to invite you to participate in a vote on the talk page about whether or not Libertarian candidate Matt Waters should be included in the infobox.74.110.185.157 (talk) 12:08, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

NY Senate elections 2018
Hi!, I guess we had the same idea to create drafts to NY Senate election article, when they'll get published, we can merge our articles together right? The only thing is the I have specific descriptions of the NY senate districts that I would like to add in, but everything else seems the same. VietPride10 (talk) 23:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes! I'm not as good at writing as I am at the nuts and bolts stuff anyway.  Nevermore27  (talk) 03:17, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

3RR on Ohio gubernatorial election
Just a friendly reminder. You have reached the WP:3RR limit on Ohio gubernatorial election, 2018. KalHolmann (talk) 03:31, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Then people need to stop edit warring contra consensus  Nevermore27  (talk) 03:34, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Revert
Hey, I moved the sourced content to the relevant article United_States_elections,_2018 which for some reasons I didn't find yesterday. Given I'am a veteran Wikipedian I was able to monitor and preserve-move these sourced information. All fixed, no information lost. Yug (talk)  11:47, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

RfC
Hi Nevermore27, I noticed that you have made 3 edits inside an already archived/closed RfC? Those sections typically should not be edited once closed. Perhaps that would be better within another section? Just an idea/heads up incase you hadn't noticed. -- The SandDoctor Talk 06:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * the initial edit I was in the process of writing as the RfC was closed, so I had no idea until I posted the edit. The other two I made just to clean up grammar. I do apologize, I had idea it was going to happen.  Nevermore27  (talk) 06:21, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem! Just thought it was unusual. Sorry to ec with you. -- The SandDoctor Talk 07:20, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Michigan Supreme Court
The column you added to the MSC page about when the Justices hit age 70 is interesting. However, I am left wondering whether that is the optimal way of presenting the information. The rule in Michigan is that Justices (or any other judge) can serve past age 70, it's that they cannot file to run for re-election after they turn 70. Perhaps you know that, I don't mean to patronize you and tell you what you already know if so. But I am just wondering if the more relevant piece of information is the Justice's "out date" of when they'll be precluded from filing to run again. I applaud the spirit of column, certainly, just looking to possibly improve it. I saw it and got thinking that knowing when they turn 70 will still require me to do a fair amount of math to figure out when they next have to run for re-election after they hit 70. MrArticleOne (talk) 23:58, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If you want to change it to "mandatory retirement" instead, that's fine by me, I was just trying to mirror the page to other state supreme courts.  Nevermore27  (talk) 05:54, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I haven't surveyed other state supreme courts' pages, but I think many other states have as the mandatory retirement date the Justice's actual birthday (whenever they hit whatever the magic age is). Michigan is somewhat unusual (as I understand it) in letting a Justice serve past the magic age, and just preventing them from filing for re-election whenever their term expires after the magic age. MrArticleOne (talk) 02:10, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Every state is different for sure, I wasn't trying to equate reaching age 70 with automatic retirement, but I thought having it in the table was at least a helpful benchmark.  Nevermore27  (talk) 02:21, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree, it is a helpful benchmark, although I think more helpful yet is just figuring when they are precluded from running for re-election again. I may change it to "mandatory retirement" per your suggestion above, I just need to take a bit of time to do the figuring. MrArticleOne (talk) 02:45, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Speakers of the US House of Representatives
I had to revert all your bold changes. Reliable sources have Paul Ryan as the 54th Speaker of the House. See further discussion at List of Speakers of the United States House of Representatives article. GoodDay (talk) 16:42, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

My advice, if you disagree? open an Rfc at Paul Ryan asking which he should be shown as - the 54th or 62nd speaker. Whatever the result there, will determined the numbering of his predecessors. GoodDay (talk) 21:11, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks  Nevermore27  (talk) 23:45, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

An invitation to discussion
I kindly invite you to the discussion on Template talk:Infobox election to decide whether to bold the winner in the election infobox. Lmmnhn (talk) 19:17, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

February 8
Sorry, but both IMDb and "famousbirthdays" are specifically noted as unreliable sources - see Reliable sources. Deb (talk) 22:28, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, it's not enough for it to just state the birthdate, because that could just be copied from anywhere or made up. IMDb gets its information from individuals, just as Wikipedia does. The sites that list famous birthdays are often just copied from Wikipedia. A book, as long as it's not self-published, or the website of some notable organisation such as a university or Parliament, would normally be acceptable. Deb (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I found an interview article where WJH mentions that Feb 8 is his birthday, would that count?  Nevermore27  (talk) 22:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As long as he mentions the year as well. Deb (talk) 22:39, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * In response to your comment about Harper - take another look at the edit summary: Deb (talk) 08:21, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

House Oversight and Reform Committee
Thank you for your edits to this committee page and the others. When I added the returning members, It was announced via press release BEFORE the resolution passed. That is why I updated them, so if there were any issues with that I apologize. The press releases are valid sources if they are published, so the information was good to publish. BlueRaider615 talk —Preceding undated comment added 19:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Just like it would be wrong to refer to Donald Trump as "President" on January 19, 2017, someone isn't a member of a committee until they are officially elected as such. I understand the impulse to add things the instant information is available but that's not how Wikipedia works.  Nevermore27  (talk) 21:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * LOL ok. BlueRaider615 talk

Invitation to the final vote on the bolding issue
Thank you for participating in the bolding issue of the election infobox earlier. We are now holding a final vote in order to reach a clear and final consensus. Please take a moment to review our discussion and vote in Template talk:Infobox election. Lmmnhn (talk) 14:54, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

United States House Financial Services Subcommittee on Diversity and Inclusion moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, United States House Financial Services Subcommittee on Diversity and Inclusion, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 00:56, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: United States House Financial Services Subcommittee on Diversity and Inclusion has been accepted
 United States House Financial Services Subcommittee on Diversity and Inclusion, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Chetsford (talk) 03:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=United_States_House_Financial_Services_Subcommittee_on_Diversity_and_Inclusion help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Nomination for deletion of Template:Icelandic parliamentary election, 2016
Template:Icelandic parliamentary election, 2016 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.  Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

WikiLove


 Erpert  blah, blah, blah... has given you a bubble tea! Bubble teas promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a bubble tea, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy drinking!

Spread the awesomeness of bubble teas by adding Bubble tea to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Thanks for your work on Worst Bakers in America.  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 17:35, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:ICCCouncil.jpg


The file File:ICCCouncil.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Superseded by File:ICCCouncil.png, which is up to date and a better file format."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:35, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Gubernatorial lines of succession in the United States


Hello, Nevermore27. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Gubernatorial lines of succession in the United States".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! CptViraj (📧) 10:49, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Thanks for creating Gubernatorial lines of succession in the United States.

User:Onel5969 while examining this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

 Onel 5969  TT me 11:31, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you!  Nevermore27  (talk) 00:14, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Userspace drafts copied from articles
Hello. While carrying out some routine maintenance work, I came across a few subpages of your user page that appear to contain content that was copied from articles. While this is permissible for short-term use, in general it is highly problematic from a copyright standpoint. See WP:UP and Copying within Wikipedia. The content on the following subpages, to the extent it was copied from articles, does not properly attribute the original contributors of the content and, as such, violates Wikipedia's copyright policy.


 * (A) Subpages that duplicate article content, and for which you are the sole contributor (of non-technical edits) – problematic, need to be deleted
 * User:Nevermore27/alaska - last edited in December 2014; duplicates old versions of Alaska House of Representatives and Alaska Senate
 * User:Nevermore27/nycc2017 - last edited in October 2018; duplicates 2018 Indiana State Senate election, and prior versions duplicated 2018 New York Senate election
 * User:Nevermore27/2013 - last edited in January 2020; duplicates 2013 New York City Council election
 * Do you have any objection to deleting these subpages? Since you are the sole contributor to these pages, anything you might have copied from these pages to an article would already be attributed to you.


 * (B) Subpages that duplicate article content, but for which you are not the sole contributor (of non-technical edits) – more problematic, may need to be deleted
 * User:Nevermore27/116 - last edited in February 2019; User:Arjavrawal2 is also a contributor; duplicates United States House Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands and previously contained information related to the 116th United States Congress
 * Do you know if any of the content in previous versions was copied into some other article? If no, then it can be deleted, too.


 * (C) Subpages that do not duplicate article content, and for which you are the sole contributor (of non-technical edits)
 * User:Nevermore27/seniority - last edited in January 2019; 2018 New Hampshire House of Representatives election is a red link, but prior versions of the subpage had different content (see diff) that appears to have been copied from 2018 Vermont House of Representatives election
 * Is the current content (related to the NH election) copied from an article? If no, what is the earliest version that was not copied from an article? I can leave the current version(s) and just delete the older revisions that were copied from elsewhere.

Thank you, -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:40, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your message, I have no objection to deleting these draftspace articles with only two exceptions, the User:Nevermore27/2013 and User:Nevermore27/seniority, which I do intend to keep working on. The 2013 in particular is intended to restructure the 2013 New York City Council election page to look more like the 2017 one, which I contributed to and feel is superior. The others you mention I'm finished with and can be deleted. Thank you again.  Nevermore27  (talk) 02:37, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Cal_Cunningham
Nevermore27,

Inasmuch as you provided some edits relevant to the discussion on inclusion of information on a PPP loan to WasteZero please feel free to weigh in on Talk:Cal_Cunningham.

Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 07:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Edgmon
Now that I look at it--I do see the update, but, as can be evidenced from this, as of a few days ago, the listing did show him as a Democrat. Do you think this is an extended oversight, or actual evidence of switches? Iseult  Δx parlez moi 22:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I see the issue now. The tweeter has linked to Edgmon's member profile for the 30th legislature (when Edgmon was still formally a Democrat) as opposed to the 32nd legislature, where we are now. By all accounts Edgmon's switch was likely just for political expediency and he's still a Democrat at heart, but for Wikipedia's purposes his formal identification is what matters. Here is his member profile for the 32nd legislature  Nevermore27  (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Gubernatorial lines of succession in the United States
Hi @Nevermore27! Firstly, I just wanted to say fantastic work on Gubernatorial lines of succession in the United States. It's a fascinating and well-made article.

I also wanted to get your thoughts on adding the circumstances in which a person next in line to a governorship would succeed to become governor or acting governor in the form of using bullet points. I realise that this could be complicated, but I do think that it would add to the article. For example, for Alabama, the text could read (this is a first draft, it should include bullet points rather than asterisks and also spaces before each new sentence):

The person next in line will become governor if the governor and the people above them in the line of succession have: * been removed from office * died * resigned The person next in line will gain the governor's power and authority if the governor and the people above them in the line of succession are: * impeached (until they are acquitted) * absent from the state for more than twenty days (until they return) * unsound in mind (until they are restored to their mind) * otherwise disabled (until they are relieved from the other disability) The person next in line will exercise the duties of governor if the governor-elect (and, if applicable, lieutenant governor-elect): * fails or refuse from any cause to qualify (until they qualify)

Let me know what you think! I was going to post this on the article's talk page, but after looking at the edit history I realised that the person who I really wanted to hear from was yourself. Thanks in advance. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 21:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

The West Wing task force
Hi there! If you're receiving this, it's because you like The West Wing—I happen to love the show, and I'm trying to set up a task force for it under WikiProject Television to improve its coverage on Wikipedia. If you'd like to join, please leave your name here—hope to see you there!

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:08, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

new section
Thank you for correcting my edit on the Third Circuit. Could you let me know how you find the seat number for the judges so I know how to do so in the future? Dequanhargrove (talk) 17:07, 16 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Sure! at the bottom of the article you'll see the section "succession of seats", that's where the information is!  Nevermore27  (talk) 18:19, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Party shading/ICM
Template:Party shading/ICM has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:27, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Party shading/ICM Party (Virgin Islands)
Template:Party shading/ICM Party (Virgin Islands) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:27, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

February 2022
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to List of Native American politicians, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Yuchitown (talk) 20:52, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Yuchitown
 * Sorry for not leaving a message in the edit summary, I removed it because it's the exact same information as on List of Native Americans in the United States Congress but in a poorer quality table. Much like the List of LGBT politicians in the United States and List of LGBT members of the United States Congress, I felt like it was better to link to the main page rather than having duplicate information.  Nevermore27  (talk) 21:08, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Then you propose a solution on the talk pages of those articles. Yuchitown (talk) 01:41, 25 February 2022 (UTC)Yuchitown
 * WP:Be Bold  Nevermore27  (talk) 01:46, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

You're invited! Wiki Loves Pride in Indianapolis
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Indiana-area events by removing your name from this list. Sent on 19:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC).)

July 28: You're invited! Food Deserts & Food Policy in Indianapolis editathon
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Indiana-area events by removing your name from this list. Sent on 08:54, 18 July 2022 (UTC).)

Proposed deletion of File:Current State Treasurers.PNG


The file File:Current State Treasurers.PNG has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Unused. Severely outdated map. No obvious use. Up-to-date version at"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax &laquo;&brvbar;talk&brvbar;&raquo; 14:41, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Current United States Attorneys General.PNG


The file File:Current United States Attorneys General.PNG has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Unused. Severely outdated map. No obvious use. Up-to-date version at File:Party affiliation of current United States attorneys general.svg."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax &laquo;&brvbar;talk&brvbar;&raquo; 14:41, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Nebraska US house.JPG


The file File:Nebraska US house.JPG has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Unused. Low quality. Superseded by File:United States Congressional Districts in Nebraska, 2003 – 2013.tif."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax &laquo;&brvbar;talk&brvbar;&raquo; 05:25, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Nebraska US house.PNG


The file File:Nebraska US house.PNG has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Unused. Low quality. Superseded by File:United States Congressional Districts in Nebraska, 2003 – 2013.tif."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax &laquo;&brvbar;talk&brvbar;&raquo; 05:25, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

You're invited! Environmental Justice editathons in Indianapolis & Bloomington
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Indiana-area events by removing your name from this list. Sent on 01:52, 10 October 2022 (UTC).)

Your edit comments
Hi Nevermore27! There's no requirement that anyone edit anything, and identifying problems is still a contribution. See WP:BURDEN for some notes about that.) It also makes sense to ask after a discrepancy to first see if there wasn't a misunderstanding. In the future, maybe it's best to consider WP:CIVIL. -- Mikeblas (talk) 20:33, 23 October 2022 (UTC)


 * @Mikeblas k  Nevermore27  (talk) 20:52, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

You're invited! In-person WikiConference North America Meetup in Indianapolis!
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Indiana-area events by removing your name from this list. Sent on 17:17, 4 November 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) 00:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Help with Adam Pritzker
Hi Brendan. I'm reaching out to you because I noticed your active Wiki-editing and your involvement in WP:USG. I'd be grateful for your assistance with updating Adam Pritzker's article with his two new roles, including his political activism. I've posted an edit request that is still pending. Thanks for facilitating these changes and improvements. DCBPI (talk) 14:32, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

March 17: You're invited! Indiana Women in the Arts editathon
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Indiana-area events by removing your name from this list. Sent on 21:02, 8 March 2023 (UTC).)

You're invited! Indiana Politics & Government Editathon on Saturday, May 13
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Indiana-area events by removing your name from this list. Sent on 01:27, 5 May 2023 (UTC).)

You're invited! Wiki Loves Pride in Indianapolis
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Indiana-area events by removing your name from this list. Sent on 16:30, 19 June 2023 (UTC).)

You're invited! Indiana State Fair Wiknic on Sunday, July 30
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Indiana-area events by removing your name from this list. Sent on 13:54, 22 July 2023 (UTC).)

You're invited! Underrepresented Artists of Indiana editathon on Oct. 11
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Indiana-area events by removing your name from this list. Sent on 00:49, 5 October 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) 00:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Indiana US house.JPG


The file File:Indiana US house.JPG has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Unused, superseded by c:File:Indiana_2006_House_Map.svg."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax &laquo;&brvbar;talk&brvbar;&raquo; 03:20, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Triple Crown
Hey! No problem. Yeah, I had a feeling the International factor was a throw-off. And I am all for variants being included. (Including honorary awards.) But imo, maybe they should be subsections underneath the primary three awards, you know? Main editors might dismiss that as "obvious". I tried to group it actually, but the bullet point vs. pound sign (for numbered bullet points) was just a mess. In any event, I myself was actually surprised that Jackson was actually younger than Plummer when she won the Tony. I thought she was like 90 tbh. RIP, what a treasure both were though! --Cinemaniac86TalkStalk 23:12, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * yeah totally agree that they are separate awards categories  Nevermore27  (talk) 23:19, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

ABA Ratings and discussion
Unfortunately this is one of the downsides of Wikipedia. I would like to understand why you are taking this personally and in such a way that 'has soured you'. All that has occurred here is the usual practices of Wikipedia. I note you did propose an original discussion, but until you made the changes the talk page was not looked at. Then a discussion ensued, which relied on the content which was added and the policies and guidelines of Wikipeida. The discussions made no contributor comments and assumed good faith at all times.

This is how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Be bold, if you are reverted or challenged, discuss. That is how Wikipedia works.

None of this is supposed to patronising, i am just confused that a veteran editor such as yourself has stated you are 'soured'.

Why are you taking this so personally? PicturePerfect666 (talk) 17:48, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have no interest in discussing this with you. Thank you for reaching out.  Nevermore27  (talk) 17:52, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you so much!  Nevermore27  (talk) 15:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to join New pages patrol
Hello Nevermore27! Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
 * We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
 * Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
 * Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
 * If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

== United States House Judiciary Subcommittee on Responsiveness and Accountability to Oversight moved to draftspace ==

Thanks for your contributions to United States House Judiciary Subcommittee on Responsiveness and Accountability to Oversight. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:54, 25 February 2024 (UTC)


 * it's no more or less notable than any other congressional subcommittee page. Any reference is going to be from the House committee's website so adding sources just for the purpose of publishing the draft is by nature recursive. If you don't think this page is notable enough, you almost have to believe the same for all of them.  Nevermore27  (talk) 04:08, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If there are reliable, independent sources available that talk about the subcommittee in-depth, then they would enhance the eventual article and not just be "for the purpose of publishing the draft". Please do add them to the draft when you find such sources. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:16, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * There aren't any, because independent sources don't talk about congressional subcommittees. That doesn't make them not notable or verifiable.  Nevermore27  (talk) 04:22, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Nevermore27, notabilty on Wikipedia has a definition that is different from the common usage of the term. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:27, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * MPGuy, I have been an editor on Wikipedia approximately 6 times longer than you have, please do me the courtesy of not talking down to me.  Nevermore27  (talk) 04:30, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if you felt that way, but it wasn't intended at all. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:02, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

March 2024
Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as Brian Schatz. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Plagiarism, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. ''Please see this report for further information regarding the copyright infringement and please do not copy/paste from the internet. https://api.ithenticate.com/en_us/dv/20220511?o=106924091&lang=en_us'' MrBauer24 (talk) 01:00, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Revert on NPVIC page
Hi, can I ask why you (mostly) reverted my edit on National Popular Vote Interstate Compact? (You forgot to add in the note about enactment being required in performing the revert.) The bill was enacted by the House 73-72 just today (April 2nd) according to this Maine bill tracker, but you reverted my edits without explanation. Why the revert? Sniffnoy (talk) 02:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @Sniffnoy i didn't revert your edit, I just added the first passing vote, similarly to how it's noted the last time Maine considered the bill. Apologies for not explaining what I did.  Nevermore27  (talk) 02:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, my mistake. Guess I didn't read closely enough.  Sorry about that! Sniffnoy (talk) 03:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Sniffnoy no worries, it annoys me how Maine and Massachusetts have separate votes for passage and enactment  Nevermore27  (talk) 03:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)