User talk:Thesavagenorwegian

Pending changes reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also: TonyBallioni (talk) 01:38, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
 * Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
 * Protection policy, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

Map Request!
Hello! I saw your map work for 2020 United States Senate elections. I believe that a map showing the Petitioners and Respondents in California v. Texas would aid user comprehension. I don't possess the artistic ability to do it myself, but I would appreciate if you could!

Petitioners: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Kentucky, and the District of Columbia.

Respondents: Texas, Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia

Thank you for any help you can provide! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThatSuperNerd (talk • contribs) 06:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Should I make Kentucky a different color, since the governor is the plaintiff in that case, and not the state? Also, right now I'm using yellow and green, any objections to that color scheme?  The Savage  Norwegian  00:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC)


 * It is done.



 The Savage  Norwegian  00:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Upon further research, Kentucky should probably be a different color. In the state Attorney General is a Republican and the Governor is a Democrat. While the Governor well might be acting in his official capacity (and as the former Attorney General of the state), he does not represent the state. Only the Attorney General can officially do that. Also on the colors, I thought of it as blue (Plaintiff) v. red (Respondent), but it frankly doesn't matter to me, and I don't want to unnecessarily editorialize the partisanship in the litigation. I do love the map, I am glad that you could make it. I think it will add a lot to the article and improve the reader's understanding of the situation greatly! ThatSuperNerd (talk) 02:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Trout time >:(
I noted over at User_talk:68.56.148.10 you used rollback on the users talk page without good reason, esp. as the warnings there were stale. As it's in the users userspace, not many people will see it so there was no need to rm something as minor as "reddit sux". That's the end of the trout now, I understand this was very likely a mistake, so just wanted to point it out. Thanks! Ed6767 (talk) 03:23, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. I didn't mean to use rollback here, sorry. I wanted to undo. While you're here though. What's the statue of limitations on staleness? I get that a user controls their own talk page, but I warned this IP back in October. Only reason it was on my watchlist. Is this just a warning about improper rollback use or would an undo have been inappropriate under any circumstances?  The Savage  Norwegian  03:29, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment
I saw your edit to Smith0124's talk page and I brought up your name at Talk:2020 United States Senate election in Maine as I seem to be having a similar discussion with them regarding their removal of polls they see as not relevant. 331dot (talk) 01:27, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Short Description
Hi i am Eduardo Zago Braga, you know me, and I know you are so much more experienced than me, but actually in the short description page in the suggested edits page, there is an information, that the short description start with a lowercase letter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eduardo Zago Braga (talk • contribs) 01:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Check out Short_description. The bottom of that section states, "Use sentence case, starting with a capital letter." You can also find this stated at WikiProject_Short_descriptions. You start with a capital, and you don't use ending punctuation if it's a sentence fragment.  The Savage  Norwegian  01:45, 5 June 2020 (UTC)


 * It seems to be contradictory, doesn't it? What about "Article descriptions should ideally fit on one line, and be between two to twelve words long. They are not capitalized unless the first word is a proper noun, and do not normally begin with initial articles (a, an, the). " in Article Description section in https://m.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Apps/Suggested_edits — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eduardo Zago Braga (talk • contribs) 01:52, 5 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I found your answer. "Descriptions" are a property from Wikidata, and have a slightly different style guide than "Short Descriptions" here on Wikipedia. You can find this near the top of Short description. "Initially short descriptions were drawn from the  field in Wikidata entries, but because of concerns about including information directly from another project, the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) made provision for these to be overwritten by short descriptions generated within Wikipedia." So, not contradictory as much as it is two separate style guides. The end goal is every Wikipedia article having a short description, following the same, capitalized, syntax.  The  Savage  Norwegian  02:08, 5 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Mentioning you, in case you missed my reply. I know firsthand how it can be hard to keep track of replies around here.  The Savage  Norwegian  02:16, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Savage we need to talk.
Hey Savage Smith has been blocked indefinitely this leaves the content he posted in limbo like the competitive races page and the Nishkanen ratings. We need to do something about this since now that the author of that spot is gone we need to decide what to do in his absence. So Savage what should we do about the stuff keep or remove entirely? I am asking you due to your involvement because I don't want to get into an edit war with someone else. Thank you. Wollers14 (talk) 04:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Re: 2020 United States Senate elections
Hey, I noticed Elections Daily had been added to this page by someone and then removed a few days ago. Figured I'd mention here, but I'm the EiC and figured I'd offer that we have been authoritatively cited by the Center for Politics several times. We also have firm editorial standards and an editorial team that works on the ratings. We're a relatively new website, but we are generally seen as reputable within the elections analysis community. If it's not enough that's fine, totally understand, but figured I'd plead our case so to speak. Toa Nidhiki05 19:07, 25 July 2020 (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) 00:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Hey, thanks
My great-grandparents came to Iowa from Norway. I am somewhat familiar with Iowa, but never visited Norway. Blainster (talk) 17:14, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Charles III requested move discussion
There is a new requested move discussion in progress for the Charles III article. Since you participated in the previous discussion, I thought you might like to know about this one. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:07, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Other British monarch requested move discussions currently taking place
Since you recently participated in the Charles III requested move discussion, I thought you might like to know that there are two other discussions currently going on about other British monarch article titles here and here. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:24, 30 July 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) 00:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I need your help!
SparksyFruit is still reverting back to his unconstructive edits! What should I do? Autisticeditor 20 (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Oh no! I did my revert and logged off. I see now you've been informed about the three-revert rule. Sorry you got caught up in all that! I was about to report them over at Administrator intervention against vandalism, but then I didn't. Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring is the better, more specific spot anyway, I know that now.  The Savage  Norwegian  23:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It's alright. I know what to do now next time that happens. Autisticeditor 20 (talk) 23:44, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Rollback
Please avoid using rollback in an edit war such as at Fellatio. I know stuff like that is irritating but WP:ROLLBACK is clear. There should be a discussion on article talk and an edit summary pointing to the section. Johnuniq (talk) 05:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Ahh, I just noticed that the other editor has been indeffed as a sock so ignore the above. Johnuniq (talk) 05:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I mean you're right though; sorry! Best course of action for me would have just been reporting the account, and using regular undo, right? I didn't do that. I rollbacked and warned the account even though I strongly suspected it was a sock.  The Savage  Norwegian  16:02, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You might not get much help with a report unless the problem is obvious. The first revert could just use an edit summary with a reason. Ideally, a second revert would include a link to a section on talk where the revert reason is briefly explained. Standard procedure is that it is up to the person adding material to justify it on talk. Johnuniq (talk) 05:25, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Louisville Barnstar for you!

 * Aww, shucks. Thanks a lot!  The Savage  Norwegian  23:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, Thesavagenorwegian. Thank you for your work on 2026 Minnesota Senate election. SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with. Please remember to sign your reply with ~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

&maltese; SunDawn &maltese;   (contact)   11:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Look carefully
Thesavagenorwegian did u even look at my edits? I didn't change the definition of Taiwan. If you look carefully, Taiwan is still defined as a country. I moved Taiwan to the right section per, but it's still defined as a country with marriage, and I didn't change that. So your tantrum | here seems absolutely illogical and ludicrous. Cyanmax (talk) 05:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I have replied over at Talk:Recognition of same-sex unions in Asia. I bear you no ill will. I want the article to be high-quality and informative just as I'm sure you do.  The Savage  Norwegian  17:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)