User talk:William Saturn/2015

WikiCup 2015 launch newsletter
Round one of the 2015 WikiCup has begun! So far we've had around 80 signups, which close on February 5. If you have not already signed up and want to do so, then you can add your name here. There have been changes to to several of the points scores for various categories, and the addition of Peer Reviews for the first time. These will work in the same manner as Good Article Reviews, and all of the changes are summarised here.

Remember that only the top 64 scoring competitors will make it through to the second round, and one of the new changes this year is that all scores must be claimed within two weeks of an article's promotion or appearance, so don't forget to add them to your submissions pages! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! , and

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Wolfe 2012 campaign logo.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Wolfe 2012 campaign logo.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. B (talk) 11:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Recent Edits to U.S. Presidential Elections

 * I had posted this in the WikiProject Talk previously, but given there was no response I'm personally messaging you and a couple other members for their own thoughts. More edits had been done as of yesterday without complaint, so I'm again seeking clairification. --Ariostos (talk) 16:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm just curious if the latest edits to the US Presidential Elections, principally by Ericl, are actual adopted policy by the Project membership; in simple terms it amounts to the removal of the candidate and balloting sections, to be replaced instead with the Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates nominated (though Ericl's latest edit in 1856 neglect this), with the balloting for those offices being relegated to the Convention articles. The recent edits to the 1860 most exemplify this apparent "new direction". --Ariostos (talk) 15:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * He seems to be acting on his own. I need to look into this more before I can comment.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editing
Have you found GageSkimore to be a disruptive editor? I notice your reversion on the Democratic Party presidential candidates, 2016 page. I have had previous run-ins with him in the past, to the point of his being warned for disruptive editing Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive280. He likes to do things without description, and likes to revert edits to work he has done without discussion. See Rand Paul presidential campaign, 2016 and his (talk). I think we should keep an eye on this.  Spartan 7W  §  00:46, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * He takes great photos, but he's not the most collegiate editor.--William S. Saturn (talk) 01:11, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That's putting it mildly. He filed an ANI report against an editor and now it's boomeranged against him. Since the topic of his arguably disruptive editing has come up here, I invite your participation. Jus  da  fax   02:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Stop attributing edits
Please stop attributing random edits to me, I do not even own a smart phone. I randomly came across this in the edit history of the 2016 template. Calibrador (talk) 17:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!
We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways: Sign up now Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
 * Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
 * Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
 * Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
 * Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
 * Research coordinators: run reference services

Wikipedia email re Newspapers.com signup
HazelAB (talk) 16:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Commons
Reasons for deletion I see the policy right there  Spartan 7W  §  19:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I never nominated the files for deletion.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * But I have now and so you've been notified automatically.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Candidates
It is clear you don't like the circular style. But many have expressed their favor of it. Additionally, official portraits are preferred in articles, and you removed them, replacing them with less-than-perfect alternatives. For example, Graham isn't looking at the camera, Walker has something on his lips, Gilmore and Cruz are mid-speech, the Bush image isn't a natural complexion. Old Christie image was straight and head-on, yours is from below.  Spartan 7W  §  14:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * So then why are you not using the official images for Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush, Bobby Jindal, or Rick Santorum? --William S. Saturn (talk) 16:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC for 2016
There is a request for comment on the 2016 article, and your involvement has been noted. You may wish to vote.  Spartan 7W  §  00:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Reversion
I didn't change everything. I made it the way it was prior to my first big edit. That is only fair.  Spartan 7W  §  00:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The tables are not the only things on the page. You changed a whole lot.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I also saw how you tried to sneakily remove third party candidates.--William S. Saturn (talk) 01:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey screw you. You don't need to make snide comments. What don't you understand about what I said I did. I went back to August 5, and replaced what is there today with what was there before I made the big edits. I don't know why you have a personal crusade against what I do.  Spartan 7W  §  01:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Because other things are being changed on the page. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a design experiment.  If you want to play with tables and logos and images then create your own wiki for that purpose.--William S. Saturn (talk) 01:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I am trying to create a more modern, attractive, and useful wikipedia. If we never made style changes, wikipedia would be 99.99% different than it was in 2002, or 2005 or 2008. Things progress. You may not like that, but I am not experimenting as though I don't know what I'm doing. I had basis, as I explained. You are crusading against everything I do, with little principled rationale.  Spartan 7W   §  01:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * A look at your userpage with certain browsers would certainly say otherwise about whether you know what you are doing.--William S. Saturn (talk) 01:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't really give a shit about my userpage. The new organization I introduced works on desktop and on mobile applications. If you don't like my userpage, thats nice. It isn't an article, so it doesn't matter if it works for everybody. I haven't paid attention to it since I placed it the way it is. Somebody told me its broken. Thats a bummer. P.S., I updated my user page, I hope it pleases you :)  Spartan 7W  §  01:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Jeb Bush image proposal
There has been an image proposal discussion for Jeb Bush at his talk page. I thought you'd like to pitch in :) --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC
There is a Request for Comment now live on the Template talk:User WikiProject United States presidential elections. Your previous involvement in this template indicates you may wish to consider commenting on your preferred outcome for this userbox.  Spartan 7W  §  17:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Lincoln Chafee
I emailed Debbie Rich if she has permission from Joe. Ms. Rich is the spokeswoman of Mr. Chafee's 2016 campaign. That image is used in the main page. I'm sure the spokeswoman would check the facts before giving permission or otherwise she would have said no. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I doubt that very much. Most people do not understand copyright.  Plus, assuming she had the authority, she did not give explicit permission.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Damn. Her of all people should have known. This annoys me. Sorry for the trouble. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Candidates
Listen, you have an obvious personal issue, and I don't know why. On the Republican page, this format was established by a discussion in the talk page, and continuing it to the Democratic side is a logical step. You only have 1 reason to undo this work, because you don't like it. I don't know why you must harass me, but stop.  Spartan7W  &sect;   17:33, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I gave you four reasons: 1. white space, 2. inconsistent with USPE, 2016, 3. make it difficult to add new photos, 4. inconsistent with wikipedia styles --William S. Saturn (talk) 17:33, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Its only inconsistent with 2016 main page because you made it that way.   Spartan7W   &sect;   17:35, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Not really. You tried to change the page to make it that way, but it was rejected.  The circle images are an abomination and the new Perry image is barely visible.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:38, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It was rejected, by you. You don't have to be such a shit. You marked all campaign logos in violation of copyright, although only 1 was even close. That is being an ass.  Spartan7W   &sect;   17:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually the logos are another matter for another day. I notice you had to change many of them to avoid copyright violations.  If I had not intervened, the page would be full of copyright violations.  As for rejecting the change, Tarc did so as well.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:42, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

*I* am beginning to have a "personal issue" with this stuff. You have both been acting rather shoddily towards each other, and I would like to see an ACTUALLY AMICABLE bit of closure. Although I personally am against the circle-logos, as being not-low-hassle-enough for the encyclopedia anyone can edit, I do recognize that some bangvoters see them as aesthetically pleasing. And in fact, *I* see them as pretty cool, though I do wish they would spin like tops when you hover your mouse over them. William S. Saturn: your personal opinion that the circle-pics are an abomination, is not germane here on the 'pedia. All that matters is the merits of the proposal, with regard to the overall wiki-policies. So please, stick to the merits w.r.t. PAG, and quit with the wild talk about "universally loathed". Such talk makes you look in-the-wrong. User:Spartan7W, you are not off the hook here: you feel like William S. Saturn is out to get you, wiki-stalking you, trying to ruin your wiki-life, an enemy of your wonderful and loved-by-all circle-pics, and a copyright stickler. You are reacting very badly to a content dispute -- and an aesthetic content dispute at that, not even involving hard factoids backed up by the WP:SOURCES. Stop making wild accusations that William S. Saturn has some kind of vendetta against you, this is not germane here on the 'pedia. All that matters, is the merits of the proposal, with regard to the overall wiki-policies. Your proposals have some merit, and are likely to get implemented, though not in exactly the way you hoped. That doesn't make you the 'winner' because wikipedia is WP:NOTBATTLE. I am strongly suggesting to you both: get a grip, start waiting thirty minutes between reading some comment the other person made and replying thereto, click preview and count to ten and reread with a beginner's mind before you click save, stay cool calm and collected. I also VERY strongly recommend that you each start backtracking your own edit-histories, from when this stupid circle-pic versus square-pic wiki-bickering first began, and strike the bits where you said something the least bit non-compliant with WP:NICE aka pillar four, about the other editor. If you believe that you are innocent, and it is all the other editor, I am happy to help you in your search. Whomever takes me up on my offer, to make the backtrail pillar-four-compliant, will immediately gain the high moral ground. But I hope that you both will take me up on it, this back-n-forth is helping no one... but more crucially, the underlying bad feelings are NOT acceptable. I'm not telling you to be best wiki-buddies forever. I am telling you that festering feelings that burst into the open are the root cause of the problem here, and that keeping them covert is not the solution which is optimal for wikipedia: the optimal solution is for you both to recognize where you have erred, and for you both to recognize where the other is adding value to the 'pedia, and for you both to get along (I mean REALLY get along not just faux-politeness) when working on these political articles. This is high-pressure high-difficulty work. It is not easy. But we must all hang together, or surely we shalt all hang separately, as the great B.Franklin once said. Wikipedia is about to be overwhelmed with a bunch of POV-pushing edits, the CNN debate is right around the corner, the cycle is going to be very heated in the real-world and that will translate to lots of on-wiki difficulties, so please, bury the hatchet on this stuff. I'm happy to help in any way I can, but I'm a results-oriented type of wikipedian: show me you are willing to follow the pillars, por favor, the both of ya. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 11:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your concern but I will continue to express my opinion about the circle images. I have already laid out four reasons for my opinion: (1) the circles create unnecessary white space, (2) the circles are inconsistent with USPE, 2016, (3) the circles make it difficult/impossible for other users to add new photos, and (4) the circles are inconsistent with wikipedia style.  Conversely, Spartan has offered one justification for the circles: WP:ILIKEIT.  Additionally, Spartan says the layout is outdated, but in my opinion, gaudiness is outdated.  I don't understand this "outdated" argument.  The current layout does not cause accessibility issues.  It does not increase load time.  It does not make it harder for others to edit.  Rather, Spartan's initial layout caused such issues. I appreciate the work Spartan has done and I believe he has good intentions, but that's not going to stop me from expressing my opinion. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:42, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Per WP:DONTTEMPLATETHEREGULARS, you have a few more wiki-years under your wiki-belt, so your lecture will be briefer. But harsher!  ;-)      You can express your opinion, sure, as long as you comply with pillar four, eh?  But words do have meanings:  when you say 'universally' that is going well beyond your opinion, right?  And contravening the RfC, where at least four people expressed admiration for circle-pics specifically, and several more implied their preference by picking option#C over option#B.  Now, it is true, Spartan has their opinion about the design being outdated, and you have your opinion about circle-pics being gaudy, and I don't expect either of you will convince the other, and that is fine because WP:NOTOUTDATED and also equally WP:NOTGAUDY are failed wiki-policies.  WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT are equally contra-policy stances, but are permitted, as long as WP:NICE is respected, and work on the 'pedia can proceed unabated.


 * The merit-based argument here, is whether circle-pics violate the four things you listed. You are wrong on reason#1, use of circle-pic versus use of square-pic has *zero* impact on whitespace.  Layout-choice has a *large* impact on whitespace, but option#H with circle-pics is a whitespace hog, and option#H with square-pics is a whitespace hog.  The choice of layout is at fault, aka pics-in-a-dedicated-cell (which also applies to option#C and option#F however).  You are also wrong on #2, just because WP:OTHERSTUFF exists, does not mean that circle-pics ought be prevented on a page where WP:CONSENSUS exists to implement them.  Of course, in the long run, you are correct that there needs to be a broad consensus about whether to use circle-pics for all election articles, or whether to use square-pics for all election articles, subject to individual exceptions of local-consensus... but you cannot say that, because there is NOT yet such a broad consensus, that nobody is allowed to raise the issue of whether WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE, right?  But, you know that already.  Argument#4 you give also boils down to the idea that, because wikipedia has some square photos now, circle-photos are verboten forever.  Simply not the case, and even though you and I dislike the circle-photos (me less than you albeit), we still have to be rational and collaborative here, amongst ourselves.
 * That leaves just reason#3. Which you are a bit hyperbolic about, in your phrasing.  Circle-pics do not, by any stretch of verbiage, make it impossible for any users to add new photos.  I'm an anon.  I cannot add new photos, without going through the hassle of requesting help.  Does that mean I cannot add new photos, that it is impossible, or merely that it is a hassle?  The latter, obviously.  Same thing with circle-pics:  they add hassle, where before there was less hassle.  (Anybody who has ever had a discussion about the gory innards of copyright law since 1923 with a Commons admin will agree with me that no hassle photo-uploading simply does NOT exist on the 'pedia nowadays... photo uploading is incredibly hassle-intensive even for non-anons.)  So the question is, does this additional hassle hurt wikipedia?  And the answer is yes, methinks, the circle-pics make it harder to upload, and if they become the standard choice for election-related articles, the end result will be that we deter photo-uploads.  This has an impact on less-trafficked articles, like state reps, far greater than it does on high-traffic articles like potus'16, because there are going to be fewer election-article-savvy folks around to offer help.  But the dealbreaker for me, is that the added hassle of the circle-pics will make correcting NPOV screw-ups harder... and we already have serious problems with getting pillar-two-compliant photos, for the dozen-or-so people in the potus'16 photo galleries.  That much harder, on a state rep article, where help might not be easy to find.


 * But note well, even though I'm adamantly opposed to circle-pics for ease-of-editing reasons, and the corresponding NPOV-related mishaps I envision, I don't say that circle-pics are *impossible* to edit, nor do I claim they are *universally* loathed, because both statements are false ... and needlessly inflammatory. Why incite dramahz?  I can say, without any spin, that circle-pics are opposed without reservation by at least three wikipedians at the RfC, and probably four, specifically.  I can also say, that several of the people who at one point preferred a circle-pic-table to a bulleted-list-with-square-gallery-beneath, changed their minds when offered the square-pic-table.  Those things are indubitably WP:THETRUTH, correct?
 * Anyways, by all means, feel free to express your opinion, WP:NOTCENSORED. As long as your opinion is not a personal attack, and as long as your opinion is a good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, it ought to be welcomed by all.  Personally, though, I would really REALLY urge you to strive for a higher standard, which is to be actually honest-to-goodness WP:NICE even when you disagree (especially then actually), and to claim the high moral ground, of never letting content disputes devolve into editor-versus-editor disputes.  User:Spartan7W is attempting to improve the 'pedia, in good faith, and although their feelings of being under wiki-attack are NOT policy-based, your intransigence about forcefully expressing your opinions... and in some cases failing to focus on the content and straying into pillar-four territory by commenting on the contributor... is sub-optimal.  They want the same things as you want, that I can tell:  a revitalized wikiproject, and a consistent layout.  I don't participate in wikiprojects, and I'm more flexible about page-specific layouts (especially if they are SORTABLE as the great Jimbo obviously intended all layouts to be! :-)       My goal here, is just to get back to a nice collaborative environment, on the election-related articles, because very soon we can expect an influx of beginning editors, eh?  So please, patch this wiki-bickering up, smooth over the Things Which Ought Not Have Been Spaken Hastily, in the past, and we can figure out a useful way forward.  Spartan suggested that option#F might satisfy them, so who knows what the future holds?  But it needs to hold more nice collaboration, por favor, pretty please, et cetera.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 08:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

not sure if you like the Coen Bros
But talking about politics and 'bona fide' reminded me of this thirty-second clip. The key bit is who *says* you are bona fide. (In this case, momma says.) That's why I prefer 'recognized' because it tends to boil down to the same thing, in the end. DeezNuts is "recognized" as having filed FEC form two, but is not "selected" (aka recognized again in a different context) by the FEC to appear on their fundraising-for-2016 page, for instance. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 11:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I am defining bona fide as being recognized by the Party itself. This would only apply to the Democrats and Republicans (at least at the moment).--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I got that part, but I think you are re-defining bona fide. Which readership, that knows a bit of latin or a bit of legalese, or just likes George Clooney movies, may not expect.  See principle of least astonishment.  Why not just call it 'candidates recognized by the party' as of YYYY, rather than calling it 'bona fide candidates'?  75.108.94.227 (talk) 07:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I have done further research and agree "bona fide" might be too confusing to use. There seems to be a difference between "bona fide candidate" and "bona fide Democratic or Republican candidate."  While the FEC has its own definition, so does the Democratic Party, which it used to prevent Randall Terry from airing graphic campaign commercials during the 2012 Superbowl. I'm not sure if the Democratic Party even relies on that definition to determine which candidates to recognize. Conversely, the Republican Party has not explicitly defined the term, and so, as noted at Ballot Access News, Richard Winger relies on who the party recognizes.   "Party-recognized" is a good label to use and less arbitrary than the current five poll standard being used to determine the difference between minor and major.  If I made this proposal would you support it?--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:14, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * And since I'm not sure I mentioned this elsewhere, I think 'party-recognized' is a big improvement over 'bona fide'. I would slightly prefer to use 'RNC-recognized' because in some cases the state party (as represented by the RNC) may recognize a candidate, but the state-level-R-party-entities might not, either quasi-officially by listing Everson on their state-party-websites like he is listed on the RNC website, or more formally by keeping him off the state-level-caucus-or-primary-ballot.  I think we can say that Everson is not NHGOP-recognized (but might yet be on the NH ballot), and is not FOX-recognized, but is RNC-recognized. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm torn, because although I agree about it being *less* arbitrary, ever since you mentioned the current problem with non-bona-fide candidates like DeezNuts over on the Harry Braun talkpage, a couple weeks ago now, I have been busily but intermittently working on a sekrit proposal of my own. The problem with Mark Everson is that he is on the borderline.  The problem with Randall Terry is that he was NOT borderline, so the party HAD to come forward to block him.  There are very few cases where the party itself will take *action* to recognize some candidate specifically, and even fewer where they will take action to disavow some candidate specifically.  There was a libertarian candidate that won the dem-nominee-slot for a Senate race in 2014, and the state party officially disavowed that person was a 'Democrat' and instructed their county party chairs to not list said candidate.  But the candidate was not removed from the official Senate ballot, nor were they called anything (on the ballot) except "Democratic Party".
 * My real trouble with your idea of using party-recognized candidates, is that I don't see the Republican Party Straw Poll as an official statement of the party. We can rely on it, kinda, for 2016... but what about for future cycles?  Along the same lines, the NH state-party website has refused (by not answering the phone according to WP:BLOGS) to list Everson, right?  So he's a 'bona fide' candidate according to the national RNC website, as of March-thru-September 2015 (he was not listed before that if memory serves), but Everson is not recognized by CSPAN/FOX/CNN, nor by the polling firms, nor by some of the state parties.  Even at the FEC, he's only partially recognized, they list fundraising only for these: Clinton Sanders O'Malley + Bush Carson Cruz Fiorina Graham Huckabee Jindal Pataki Paul Perry Rubio Santorum.  Some of that is because, at the time of the Q2 filings, not all candidates were running (Gilmore Kasich Christie Braun Lessig etc).  But most of it is based on funds raised.  Everson, despite having several hundred thousand bucks for his campaign, was elided by the FEC.  Walker, despite reportedly having millions, was elided by the FEC as not having raised them in an official *campaign* fashion.
 * Point being, I think we should build a multi-axis system, which takes stock of endorsement-counts (gov+sen+nonHomeStateUsRep would be my tentative recommendation), hard-dollar fundraising (1k 10k 100k 1m 10m 100m 1b), super pac fundraising (ditto), polling-firm recognition (number of firms plus number of polls plus average percentage in polls ... concentrating on head-to-head swing states preferably), party recognition (early state & national), debate & forum & cattle-call recognition (the televised ones are just the beginning methinks). Eventually, we'll also have number-of-caucus-and-primary-ballots, which in my mind is NOT as important as average-percentage-of-vote-per-ballot, and average-number-of-votes-per-ballot.  Talking about *you* here Fred Karger.  :-)      He got votes in six states:  IA=10 NH=345 MI=1180 MD=377 CA=6481 UT=545 PR=1893, and although he stayed through the bitter end, got no delegate-votes at the convention.
 * As you may recall... grin... the main problem with the remodelling-RfC is that it was launched prematurely, before sufficient discussion of the alternative had gelled. So we ended up with a split decision, some wanting F, some wanting C, a few preferring the status quo B.  So, with that in mind, although I do think we should treat national-RNC-recognized candidates as more 'bona fide' than the non-RNC-recognized candidates, I would rather we hammer out a good solid proposal, which is a clear improvement, before trying to change from "at least five national polls" to some new scheme.  In particular, I want the new scheme to apply to both the post-election ordering, as well as the during-the-election-ordering.  Make sense?  We can use the 2012 and 2008 candidates as a test-dataset, to see how various types of combo-proposals would have rank-ordered them, at various stages of the previous campaigns.  Once we have something reasonable, THEN we should propose it as an upgrade.  Sound like a plan?  You are of course perfectly at liberty to propose now, but I would suggest waiting until we have done more fine-tuning. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 01:37, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding the "multi-axis system," that sounds very complicated. I want to avoid overly complicated schemes based on arbitrary figures.  Take a look at how I organized the 2012 candidates pages, particularly the Republicans.  This is the most natural organization for that page (and it will be eventually for Republican Party presidential candidates, 2016) but how does that translate to the main election page?  How do you determine which of the candidates to list and which to exclude without using some arbitrary measure?  To me, party-recognition seems to be the only viable possibility. The question would be where to find the information. I'm not sure if the Republican Party listed the candidates on its website in 2012 or if it had a straw poll like it does now.  I'm guessing it did, but I have to confirm that with the Internet Archive.  The problem I see with using primary ballot access and vote totals on the main election page is that it excludes obviously recognized candidates like Tim Pawlenty (and Rick Perry now) who withdrew long before the candidates filed to appear on primary ballots.  It feels natural to list Pawlenty with all the other 2012 candidates but it does not seem natural to list someone like L. John Davis Jr. who appeared on two primary ballots and doesn't even have a wikipedia article.  I once believed (and still believe this to be the best criteria for the election template), that the existence of a wikipedia article was the answer to listing candidates, but this causes candidates like Jimmy McMillan and Jeff Boss to be listed with the actual candidates, which does not seem natural.  I still believe those candidates should be listed as "others" based on NPOV, but that distinction between "other" and "main" needs to be clear.  Look at the case of Lawrence Lessig.  Is he listed in five major polls?  Well, what constitutes a major poll?  Joe Biden is easily listed in major polls, but he's not even a candidate yet.  Polls should not determine where the candidate belongs.  It should be the party since they are the ones actually doing the nominating.  Whether Lessig is recognized by the party is either yes or no.  There's no dispute.  The answer right now is no.  The party has not recognized his candidacy.  Maybe some polls recognize his candidacy.  What difference does that make.  Polling firms do not choose the nominee.  After over 8 years of pondering about this, I believe this is the fairest, least arbitrary way of organizing the page and it would be very difficult to convince me that an arbitrary standard is better.  Please excuse me for the stream of consciousness exhibited above.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:37, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries, I appreciate the sream-of-consciousness, it tells me we are 99% on the same page. Difference being, I just don't trust the national parties, any more than I trust the polling firms, to be *consistently* useful over the years.  (There was a 2012 straw poll if memory serves, but not a 2008-or-earlier one.  I expect the 2020 race will also be up in the air, and a 'straw poll' at the official website is not-all-that-official, fortunately or un.)
 * Anyways, yes, complexity is the huge downside to my as-yet-nebulous scheme. I'm trying to hammer out something offline, prior to presenting it, so as to get most of the worst complexity-bugs worked out.  But I think my scheme is non-arbitrary (that is the goal anyways), even though it is relatively complex:  I am attempting to follow what the sources say.  FEC is a source; they have a form-two-recognition, but they also have a 'selected' candidate webpage which only lists the campaigns that have been raising a bunch of hard-dollars.  RNC is a source:  they have a straw poll (this year anyways), and from time to time, might publicly disavow candidates.  The state of NH is a source:  they have state-party-websites, and they have their primary-ballots.  The state of IA is a source:  they have state-party-websites, and they have their caucus-ballots.  The teevee networks are sources:  who they invite to debate, who they don't, matters.  Specialist WP:BLOGS like ballot-access and theGreenPapers are also useful -- both of them segment the candidates, BallotAccess by RNC-recognition, and GreenPapers by dollars raised, and both of them treat Everson as "serious tier".
 * Currently, the problem we have is that for wikipedia-purposes we rely in mainspace entirely on polling-firms as sources for the yet-to-come 2016 election, and then later we rely entirely on ballot-in-caucus-and-primary-access state governments as sources for the in-the-past 2012/etc elections (cf my complaints about Karger being at #3 above Pawlenty at #20). I'm suggesting that we *expand* our use of the sources, not that we arbitrarily make up something complex ourselves.  Candidates like Clinton/OMalley and Bush/Paul/Rubio/Christie/Cruz/Huckabee will sort to the top on all counts because they are recognized by all the sources:  the FEC (twice), by the party (natl+states), TV, expert-blogs, and polling-firms.  Candidates like DeezNuts will sort to the bottom... slightly below VerminSupreme (who usually gets on a ballot or two), but perhaps slightly above Limberbutt McCubbins the underage-feline candidate.  Everson will be in the middle somewheres (exact placement depends on the details of the complex scheme -- but *any* complex scheme is better than a two-tier scheme where he's either with Clinton or with DeezNuts, in my mind.)  Anyways, I'm still trying to work out the details, and maybe a simple two-tier system like you're suggesting can be made to work, but I think it will not solve the problem of differentiating between bona-fide-serious-candidates like Lessig/Braun/Chafee, and the non-bona-fide-candidates like Deez/Limberbutt/etc.  I'm trying to get us a GREAT long-term system, that is resistant to future changes in the way some things are run.  You're trying to get us a GOOD medium-term system, better than the polling-firm-wiki-tradition.
 * I think the sources can support my approach, of divvying-up-the-field, but it will take legwork to come up with something useful, test it against the 2008 and 2012 fields, and then get consensus to use it in 2016. Now, my complex scheme might not be used until Election 2020, or maybe not at all, if I cannot manage to simplify it quite a bit. But I think that what we have now is too simple, and if you can convince me that the RNC and DNC national parties are GOOD enough vessels in the medium-term, I am happy not to let the complex-but-with-luck-GREAT be the enemy of the rough-and-ready-today-GOOD, if that makes sense.  :-)      Anyways, do a little backtracking, please, and see if you can find quasi-official lists of RNC/DNC-recognized candidates for 2012 and 2008 and such.  Maybe I'll be surprised, and such things will turn out to exist.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:25, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see why the state party websites would factor in here. This is a national election and so it makes sense to use the national parties (RNC, DNC) to make the determination for recognition.  I'll wait to see your proposal but I have trouble understanding how it could not be arbitrary.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I see the list of candidates on the NHGOP website as a proxy for the NH primary ballot, with the key difference that the NHGOP list is available *before* the primaries are close to happening, aka in 2015 for the 2016 election-cycle, in 2011 for the 2012-cycle, and so on. Ditto for the IA/SC/NV ones, and maybe for other non-early-state party websites, e.g. powerful repub-leaning states like TX and GA, powerful dem-leaning-states like NY and CA, and large swing-states like OH and FL and kinda PA.
 * Agree that it makes little difference which potus candidates are Hawaii-GOP-recognized, for instance, or which potus candidates are Utah-UDP-recognized ... but it does matter whether the NHGOP will recognize you, methinks (especially if they are bucking the national RNC quasi-official recognized-by-the-national-party-website-straw-poll list of potus candidates). p.s.  Another thing that I just remembered, over on the debates-page we speak of 'RNC-sanctioned' debates, and it might make sense to speak of Everson and the other 17 as RNC-sanctioned candidates, rather than RNC-recognized.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * In 2012, there were 30 candidates on the New Hampshire primary ballot. It is probably one of the easiest primary ballots to attain. --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yup... and yet, we organize the 2012 page purely on that basis. :-)       Which is why Karger'12, who got 345 votes in NH, is listed "above" Pawlenty'12 (on wikipedia but almost nowhere in the WP:SOURCES), despite Pawlenty being in the televised debates (and presumably Pawlenty was RNC-recognized in 2011 if you manage to dig that 2011-straw-poll-evidence up).  Since he dropped, Pawlenty was not on the NH ballot, and Karger nominally was -- though I expect Pawlenty was on the NHGOP list-of-candidates in summer 2011, and doubt Karger was.  In the 2016 cycle, there is a strong likelihood that Vermin Supreme'16 will be on the NH ballot, and Perry'16 will not.
 * Anyway, my main reason for proposing a complex multi-faceted system is that I think any singular criteria will be non-robust against buggy-candidate-placement-flaws. "Five polls" is too simple.  "State ballot count" is also too simple.  I strongly suspect that "RNC-recognized" is once again, too simple.  But if we put a bunch of orthogonal factors together (not quite 'arbitrary' because we can point to use of the factors selected *in* specific sources or at least *by* specific sources), I expect we'll have a nice default-table-sorting-order which Improves The Encyclopedia, and with any luck, the criteria will be backed by documented use of similar tiering-criteria within the WP:SOURCES.
 * I'll keep working on this type of ranking-scheme offline, for the moment, but if you want to put together a userpage for multi-criteria-brainstorming, or make an early proposal of some type on a talkpage to get the discussion rolling, please don't let me hold you back. :-)      Please ping my usertalk, though, if you decide to do some on-wiki stuff, because I'll be interested.  p.s.  I give two-to-one odds that some of the 'joke' candidates will be on at least one state-ballot during 2016, so I hope we have *some* kind of new default-ordering-system worked out in the next few months.  And as usual, I would like to propose that the final table-layout be a sortable h-table.  ;-)      At the moment, there is no way to sort the 2012 repubs by the who-was-in-teevee-debates-column, because it's not a proper h-table, but a series of disjoint h-rows. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 19:38, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:22, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * How can I opt out from receiving these notices? --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I sent them to every member of the project; you will never receive more than a notice per year, if that (I believe the practice of sending this to all members started last year and may not continue). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

References on Talk Pages
Talk_page_guidelines states "Another helpful template is the Talk page Reflist, . The template should be placed after the discussion that includes the references, as it will include all references before the template." It also says, "Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection." I don't mean to be a jerk, but please stop editing my comments. Thank you. -hugeTim (talk) 19:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Please be more considerate when editing the talk page. You caused a big useless box to be posted on the talk page that gets in the way of discussion.  If not for AGF, I'd assume you were intentionally trying to disrupt the discussion.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Plus, I didn't edit the content of your comment, I stopped it from being disruptive.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I do see how the reference box appeared to be in the way here, but in my view, the problem was the mistaken placement of your comment (in the References section) here. -hugeTim (talk) 20:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

GOP Candidates/Bush image
I object to that Bush image you just placed on the GOP candidates page. Mainly due to the fact that this is an older image where he's wearing a fairly different pair of glasses than he's been using throughout the campaign. The glasses difference, along with some color and lighting is significant enough to make up for a mouth mid-speech  Spartan7W   &sect;   05:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's from April. It's not old.  It is an obviously better image. To say otherwise is to reject reality. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Spartan. The image is a cropped version of one that was already considered and that I uploaded.  The link to previous discussion about the uncropped image is in my edit summary at the Jeb Bush article.  The cropped image that you support is less recent than the one you replaced, and less formal too.  I don't think it's too much to ask that you get consensus for it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited United States presidential election, 2016, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Libertarian Party. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Please stop accusing me of vandalism
As I've pointed out to you before, while you may consider my recent edit to be disruptive, that is not the same as WP:VANDALISM. In fact, I was updating the template based on multiple reliable sources. Please stop accusing me of vandalism. You have immediately and repeatedly refused to assume good faith, and I have attempted to remain civil nonetheless. Would you be willing to let the matter drop now in the interest of focusing on the substantive issue at hand regarding Template:United_States_presidential_election,_2016? -hugeTim (talk) 23:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You committed vandalism here and used a deceptive edit summary about sourcing when there are no sources on the template. If you want me to stop talking about your vandalism then stop bringing it up.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2000
Thanks for your help with the DYK project Victuallers (talk) 00:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Stop badgering
You don't see the illogic in what you're doing?? (If you debate my !vote in the Talk subsection, I have choice to respond or not respond. If I don't respond that could influence another !voter. If I respond, then you likely will debate my response. And if I respond again to that, we are essentially repeating the entire Talk discussion which came before, and we should rather just copy that entire discussion (duplicate it) below the !votes now, to save time. And that would be a complete duplication, unnecessary, confusing, wasting everyone's time. You may like to waste your time and create confusion, but not me. So your debates after we have already debated are attempts to draw me into said repetition, which I don't want to do, so your insistence amounts to badgering.) Please stop it. IHTS (talk) 21:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Is it an RFC? --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you (again) missing my point? BTW your behavior on the Talk has been really poor. (Personal attack, deleting my post based on markup, are just two instances.) How about settling down and let the RfC do its thing? You've already made your points in triplicate. IHTS (talk) 23:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * BTW, it's really weird to me that you accused me of both having anti-Trump POV, and being a pawn of ("directed by") their campaign. (The two positions don't create cognitive dissonance for you?!) Fact is I'm a Trump supporter. But you accuse me of "disingenuousness". (OK, what are you? IMHO, the photo you prefer has demonic qualities. Hello.) IHTS (talk) 01:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It was obvious you were a Trump supporter so I was trying to use that to sway your opinion. It didn't work but it was worth a try.--William S. Saturn (talk) 07:12, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, methinks you threw in the kitchen sink, too. (George Washington, founding father, smiling on the $1 bill? That works only if he also was winking.) IHTS (talk) 14:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Is this a good Bernie image?
I found this image at commons an was wondering if it would be a good image to represent Sanders in the 2016 election page. Thanks. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it would be. It looks good.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I found another one. -> --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Copano Bay
i have never done this, so i could be messing up. you undid my correction of the use of the word "an" versus the word "a" in front of the word "historic". Back in the 1960's i was taught to use "an" in front of a word that began with a vowel sound (like : egg, apple, item, hour) and to use "a" in front of all others. years ago i noticed that british writers were using "an" in front of "historic". Then i read somewhere the use of "an" was the the best to avoid a diphthong with the subsequent word beginning with a vowel sound. i know language changes, but i think the simple rule that i learned 50 years ago shouldnt.... trying to be open minded STEV56 (talk) 20:23, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I did some additional research and it appears you are right. The "h" in "historic" seems to be pronounced today by the vast majority of speakers and so "a" is appropriate.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * wow, i expected resistance from such a prolific editor, thanks for making my day. it would be really great to know some of your research so that i may be able to counter any possible future editors with a citation or two. thanks STEV56 (talk) 23:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's the sites I came across:, . --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * thanks much STEV56 (talk) 00:32, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I'm glad you brought this issue to my attention.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppet
You should really be careful when making accusations, especially when claiming they're obvious. I looked through User:Screwball23's last 500 contributions and there are only two mutual pages we've edited....three years apart and unrelated edits. Just because someone disagrees with you on a non-existent Wikipedia policy, does not mean you need to resort to that kind of behavior. Its disruptive and counterproductive. Please keep this in mind moving forward. Thank you, with regards MavsFan28 (talk) 22:38, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You've done a good job on segregating your edits, but it's not that easy to fool me.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:39, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * All your answers are super vague. I'm partly sure you're trolling or just trying to be funny. You haven't explained why you think I'm a sockpuppet other than its "obvious" and that you're "un-fool-able." So please, either proceed with the report or retract your accusation. Otherwise its just petty on your part. MavsFan28 (talk) 00:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't have the will to do that yet.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Right, I wouldn't either if I didn't have anything to back it up. You have the will to make accusations, just not the ability and facts to back them up. MavsFan28 (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No. I do have facts and evidence, but you haven't annoyed me enough yet for me to act on them. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * We both know you don't. But please, do one or the other. MavsFan28 (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Not yet. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:47, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, good luck with that. Have fun trolling. MavsFan28 (talk) 01:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Any updates?

Congrats on 50 DYKs

 * Thank you. --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

No consensus
Hi,

So I did as you suggested and started a discussion at WP:USPE, but unfortunately no consensus was made as to a guideline for primary election infoboxes. I didn't even mind that you broke the three revert rule, as I was hoping neither of us would have to continue editing that page once there was a consensus established. But since there wasn't, the only option would be discussing them on a case-by-case basis, since you and I don't have the ability or authority to make up our own policies.

Also, any word on the sockpuppet case? I'm sure you're annoyed enough of me that you're willing to unleash your library of evidence against me. MavsFan28 (talk) 02:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Not really. You haven't given the discussion enough time.  That's a typical Screwball23 tactic.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, just to be clear, I did not violate 3RR. I only performed three reverts.  Four reverts result in a 3RR violation.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:09, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * You're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying to decide on our own standard for articles regardless of what's decided on there, I just said for the time being it wouldn't hurt to come to some agreement or consensus.
 * You didn't violate 3RR, but you did accuse me of not discussing and simply edit warring when you did the exact same thing. I first thought you were just trolling, but now I think you really think I'm sockpuppeting. If I were to do that, I would probably use it to my advantage rather than just edit under different names to fool you. Just fyi. Also, you first said I'm trying to hide my sockpuppeting, now you say I'm blatantly using the same tactics. Fine, but surely you should open the case and get rid of any and all sockpuppets lurking around here. You're doing a great disservice to the community by not doing so. MavsFan28 (talk) 05:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm sure you're not using the same IP address as when you edited under Screwball23. So it would take a different kind of comparison.  And I'm not interesting in doing that right now.  It looks clear to me.  You both edit wrestling, basketball, and politics articles.  You are both from the Northeast.  Your edits with this account and that account have been segregated too well for someone with such similar interests.  You both obsess about minor details and edit war over them.  You always talk about "consensus" as if the lack thereof provides license to edit war.  It's not really a big deal if you are him.  You've had this account since 2012 and you've never been blocked so maybe you've turned over a new leaf.  I don't know.  But you've been edit warring with me now and it brought back memories.  Some things cannot so easily be hidden.  I've been wrong before and I'll be wrong again but I have a strong feeling I am right in this case.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Well thank you for finally stating your reasons. When you accused me and I looked through his latest revisions, none involved football/basketball...but there were hundreds, so I could have missed it. Having an interest in politics and wrestling is not uncommon if you see the number of fans both have (side note, I don't watch wrestling anymore and he edited WWE articles which I do not). While we have similar broad interests in politics and sports, its a bit naive to suggest that two people would not have both of those interests on a site edited by millions of people. Especially when we haven't been editing the same articles. I don't know about his editing style, but I know that so far you have not hesitated to edit war while accusing me of doing so as if you are not. You are wrong, and while you may not like the way I edit and/ or disagree with you, I have not broken any wikipedia policies. MavsFan28 (talk) 15:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Side note: didn't know you could see I edit from the Northeast. Unless you're just making that assumption based on articles I've edited. In which case, that would actually be a good assumption on your part. MavsFan28 (talk) 18:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

politics consensus
There seems to be an edit war going on over at the Democratic candidate 2016 article. I thought that the consensus was: anyone who's on the ballot gets a mention (but NOT an article), that's how it worked in '12, at least. Prior to ballot access being allotted, non-notables and fictional characters were being excluded, and that's fine (although I still have my "Republicans for Voldemort" tee shirt somewhere), but the ballots for about half the Feb-March primaries have been made public, and it behooves us to respect the decisions of the various secretaries of state.155.229.209.58 (talk) 16:38, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notice - American politics
-- slakr \ talk / 01:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

December 2015
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:United States presidential election, 2016. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. '' Warning is in regard to this edit.

Dislike my image contributions, fine. Believe I'm not here to improve the encyclopedia? Keep it to yourself. This was clearly out of line and most certainly a personal attack that does nothing to improve Wikipedia. Keep it up and we will be taking a walk to the principal's office together.'' -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:52, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I stand by it and I'll repeat it here: Anyone interested in whether Winkelvi is really here to improve Wikipedia can see his reaction to my criticism and advice on his talk page.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)