User talk:TheWiselyStupidOne

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello, TheWiselyStupidOne, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! L1A1 FAL (talk) 22:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Presidential candidates
Thank you for your edits at United States presidential election, 2016. The criterion for candidate inclusion in the infobox is that a candidate needs to be on enough state ballots to have a mathematical possibility to actually win the election (270 electoral votes). If someone is a write-in candidate, it means that they are not on the ballot (duh), so write-ins don't count. If you want to read all the discussions about how that criterion was established, see this thread.  Sparkie82 ( t • c )  10:08, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The current consensus is to include all candidates with a mathematical possibility of winning 270 electoral votes including the jurisdictions where they only have write-in access. This has been the consensus since 2012 through editing. Like I said before, not everyone in that thread agreed with your viewpoint and nobody even tried to refute the person that made the case for including write-ins. Please establish a new consensus before reverting this user. Also, saying "duh" can be perceived as being uncivil but I'll assume that you didn't mean it that way. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 10:38, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Write-ins are not included in the agreed-to criterion, but you know that by now. And of course the "duh" was a colloquialism shortcut for "obviously" and was not meant to be uncivil.  Sparkie82 ( t • c )  12:12, 24 September 2016 (UTC)