User talk:TexasMan34

Let me know if I am missing something, but to the best of my knowledge, that photo is from the subject's time at the OMB making it about 15 years old and not an appropriate cover photo for a living subject who is still in the public eye.

Notice
Hello, as you've been involved in discussing the newly presented Donald Trump photos, I wanted to let you know about a poll of support currently happening here. Please state which photo you support at the bottom of the section. Calibrador (talk) 02:55, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You might want to move your comment to the previous section, just so it doesn't get lost. Calibrador (talk) 03:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Retoring challenged content
Regarding your restoration of a challenged edit at United States presidential election, 2016, please review WP:BRD regading how editing is handled here on Wikipedia. When somebody makes a bold edit and it is reverted, it should be discussed on the talk page to reach a consensus first.  Sparkie82 ( t • c )  03:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Notice on wikihounding
You appear to be tracking my edits using my editing history, and you have reverted my edits on the grounds "get consensus first". Nobody needs to ask permission before editing an article, or have consensus before making changes. Requiring your or anyone else's permission prior to editing would violate the ownership policy. These articles do not belong to you, any more than they belong to me.If you have substantive reasons for your reverts, please explain them at the talk page. The maps I'm replacing are clearly biased, giving a false impression by giving the same visual weight to low-population counties as those with many orders of magnitude more voters. Correcting this misleading impression is supported by the WP:NPOV policy. If there were any policy that supported your preferred version, you might have a more reasonable argument. But from what I've seen, the only justification is "we've always done it that way" and "we decide who gets to edit these articles". These are fallacies.I'd also ask that you give the new version a little time so that readers can see it and give their own feedback. If you revert it, how do you know how it is working? What is the rush?Please do not use my edit history to track my edits and revert my changes on articles you have no previous history with. This is obvious wikihounding and you may be blocked from editing if you persist. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:22, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I find it unprofessional and rude to continue to assert the claim of wikihounding to anyone that dare revert your edits. Maybe I'm misinterpreting something, but the idea that maps are biased is an opinion, not a fact. And NPOV does not cover you when so called boases can be interpreted. When one states an opinion as fact, that warrants a thorough fact check. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PalmerTheGolfer (talk • contribs) 14:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If you're clicking on Dennis Bratland (talk | contribs) to find what you're going to revert next, that is WP:WIKIHOUNDING. I didn't make that up. The definition was written years ago: "Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work." Read it. I don't write the rules, I don't interpret them, and I don't enfore them. Read them and interpret them for yourself. Then decide for yourself how you think others will enforce them if you violate them. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:46, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I misspoke, I meant that I had previously edited both WA, and OR election pages, and I didn't come across those two pages via your page. I will not edit the Idaho election page without coming to a compromise as that would be me hounding — Preceding unsigned comment added by PalmerTheGolfer (talk • contribs) 20:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Election maps
Thanks for reverting Dennis's edits on maps!! PalmerTheGolfer (talk) 19:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I would like to thank TexasMan34 for their compromise edits. Both maps show important information and there should be no problem with the choropleth map, especially when the info box gives the statewide results. Teak the Kiwi (talk) 22:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

= RfC on the type of treemap = Hello TexasMan34. There is a discussion going on about using which type of treemap for 2016 United States presidential election in each state articles. Please join the discussion, so the dispute can be resolved. Thank you. Ali  19:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Commons talk page
Please see your Commons talk page. Thanks, Corkythe hornetfan  (ping me) 03:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

MT 1992 Map
Hey TexasMan!

With our compromise with regards to pie graph vs color map enacted, I'd like help adding the county colored map into the Montana 1992 Presidential Election, as it violates our current compromise currently. Thanks

PalmerTheGolfer (talk)PalmerTheGolfer PalmerTheGolfer (talk) 16:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

By just putting the county map above the pie graph map. Thanks

PalmerTheGolfer (talk)PalmerTheGolfer

Callista Gingrich
I have unprotected the page but there needs to be some discussion on the talk page. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 05:29, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Mexican general election, 2018
Good evening. The reason why I put the candidates by alphabetical order is because the elections have, obviously, not happened yet so we can't put them by voting order. This is how it is done in most articles concerning elections that will take place in this year (See: Zimbabwean general election, 2018, Russian presidential election, 2018, Sierra Leonean general election, 2018, etc). You mention that the candidates should be ordered "from whom got the most votes the last election". I assume you are referring to the 2012 Presidential election; by that criterion, Mr. López Obrador should be the only one to appear in the candidates' gallery, given that none of the other candidates have participated in previous presidential elections and thus, have never received votes for that office. I hope you can understand my point of view, sorry for the confussion. --CHUI372 (talk) 04:24, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I understand your point of view, however that again creates some conflicts because those alliances did not exist in previous elections, therefore they should not have their previous votes combined. And as I mentioned to you, other articles regarding future elections put the candidates by alphabetical order. We will of course switch them once the elections happen and we get the results, but in the meantime I'll put them again by alphabetical order. Hope you understand, cheers. --CHUI372 (talk) 06:47, 24 January 2018 (UTC)