Warning: Edit warring on Donald Trump. Tags: Twinkle Reverted |
|||
Line 68: | Line 68: | ||
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Michael_Weirsky <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:LotteryGeek|LotteryGeek]] ([[User talk:LotteryGeek#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/LotteryGeek|contribs]]) 17:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Michael_Weirsky <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:LotteryGeek|LotteryGeek]] ([[User talk:LotteryGeek#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/LotteryGeek|contribs]]) 17:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
:Best to get somebody else. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay#top|talk]]) 17:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC) |
:Best to get somebody else. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay#top|talk]]) 17:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC) |
||
== January 2021 == |
|||
[[File:Ambox warning pn.svg|30px|link=]] You currently appear to be engaged in an [[WP:Edit warring|edit war]]  according to the reverts you have made on [[:Donald Trump]]; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to [[Wikipedia:Consensus#In talk pages|collaborate]] with others, to avoid editing [[WP:Disruptive editing|disruptively]], and to [[WP:Consensus|try to reach a consensus]], rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. |
|||
Points to note: |
|||
# '''Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;''' |
|||
# '''Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.''' |
|||
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's [[Help:Talk pages|talk page]] to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an [[WP:Noticeboards|appropriate noticeboard]] or seek [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]]. In some cases, it may be appropriate to [[WP:Requests for page protection|request temporary page protection]]. If you engage in an edit war, you '''may be [[WP:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing.''' ''You are also in violation of the discretionary sanctions on the page. This is your opportunity to self-revert.''<!-- Template:uw-ew --> <span style="color:#AAA"><small>{{u|</small><span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 5px;background:#088">[[User:Sdkb|<span style="color:#FFF">'''Sdkb'''</span>]]</span><small>}}</small></span> <sup>[[User talk:Sdkb|'''talk''']]</sup> 20:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:00, 22 January 2021
|
Hello to all fellow Wikipedians. GoodDay 22:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC).
You may be wondering why my archives only start at August 2007. The reason: I didn't archive my pages before that date, I merely deleted them (as I didn't know how to archive). Therefore, if anyone wishes to see material before August 2007? check out this talkpage's 'history'.
Awards
I've an Awards page, where I keep a list of Wikipedia awards bestowed upon me.
Edit count & Pie chart
My Arbcom Case
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay
Aug–Sept 2007 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Nomination of Christine Fang for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Christine Fang is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christine Fang until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Hey!
Happy new year! May this year be brighter than the last! And, since I apparently mangled the talk-back feature (ten years on, and I still suck at wiki mark-up, etc.): I just wanted to let you know that I replied to your question at Talk:Luke Letlow. Have a good one! — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 03:31, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Javert2113: Happy 2021 to you, as well. GoodDay (talk) 05:35, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Welcome to my world
@RWB2020: & @Angry candy:, this is my solution for the intro to United Kingdom. Use "country" for the UK & use "constituent countries" for England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 05:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
@AussieWikiDan: See my suggestion 'above'. GoodDay (talk) 06:17, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you
Thanks for showing me how to bold and fix my talk page edit.108.30.187.155 (talk) 03:35, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
2020 Senate election
Hi,
I reverted your edits regarding the new senate majority leader. Because the Senate is now effectively 50/50 split, the party in control is reliant on the Vice President to break ties. The new Biden administration does not take office until January 20, so until that time, Republicans still have control of the Senate (because Mike Pence would have tie breaking power). Thus, no change in partisan control has happened as a result of the 2020 senate elections. The change will happen as a result of the presidential election, which is procedurally quite separate from the senate election. I hope this explanation helps. Brycecordry (talk) 15:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- Apparently @Brycecordry: you didn't read my edit-summary. Please look over 2014 United States Senate elections, 2006 United States Senate elections, 1994 United States Senate elections etc, where there was a change in majority leaders. GoodDay (talk) 15:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- Hi, @GoodDay:. I did read the edit summary, and that is a good point. However, this 2020 senate election is unique, with an effective 50/50 split. The three elections you cited above are not 50/50 splits, even though there were changes in partisan control. This 50/50 split has not happened as the result of an election since the 2000 United States Senate elections. Thus, the general precedent used on the 2000 page should be followed. In 2000, Republicans were in control before the election, but due to the 50/50 split Democrats won control for a few weeks because Al Gore had tie-breaking power. This change in control (albeit temporary) was still reflected in the article. After the Bush administration was sworn in, control reverted back to the Republicans as Dick Cheney had the tie-breaking power thereafter. This year is different from 2000, in that Republicans have technically retained control of the senate (albeit only temporarily) as a result of the senate elections because of the Republican administration still being in office and able to break ties. Democrats will take control of the senate only after Kamala Harris becomes vice-president (and thus gains tie-breaking power). That would be an event related to the presidential election, not the senate election. As a result of this complicated procedural logic, McConnell actually remains majority leader after the senate election as the change in partisan control will technically happen in the middle of the term. If you have any other questions, do not hesitate to reply again. Brycecordry (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- Very well @Brycecordry:. Though you should put a note next to McConnell's name. GoodDay (talk) 16:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- Hi, @GoodDay:. I will see that an HTML comment is placed in the source to remind future editors. I will also see about placing a footnote to describe this procedural technicality. Thanx. Brycecordry (talk) 16:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)]]
- Never mind, you beat me to it! Brycecordry (talk) 16:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- Hi, @GoodDay:. I will see that an HTML comment is placed in the source to remind future editors. I will also see about placing a footnote to describe this procedural technicality. Thanx. Brycecordry (talk) 16:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)]]
- Very well @Brycecordry:. Though you should put a note next to McConnell's name. GoodDay (talk) 16:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- Hi, @GoodDay:. I did read the edit summary, and that is a good point. However, this 2020 senate election is unique, with an effective 50/50 split. The three elections you cited above are not 50/50 splits, even though there were changes in partisan control. This 50/50 split has not happened as the result of an election since the 2000 United States Senate elections. Thus, the general precedent used on the 2000 page should be followed. In 2000, Republicans were in control before the election, but due to the 50/50 split Democrats won control for a few weeks because Al Gore had tie-breaking power. This change in control (albeit temporary) was still reflected in the article. After the Bush administration was sworn in, control reverted back to the Republicans as Dick Cheney had the tie-breaking power thereafter. This year is different from 2000, in that Republicans have technically retained control of the senate (albeit only temporarily) as a result of the senate elections because of the Republican administration still being in office and able to break ties. Democrats will take control of the senate only after Kamala Harris becomes vice-president (and thus gains tie-breaking power). That would be an event related to the presidential election, not the senate election. As a result of this complicated procedural logic, McConnell actually remains majority leader after the senate election as the change in partisan control will technically happen in the middle of the term. If you have any other questions, do not hesitate to reply again. Brycecordry (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Michael Weirsky
I started a draft about Michael Weirsky. Can you please make it a full article that is a good article or featured article, please? I would prefer it to be featured article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Michael_Weirsky — Preceding unsigned comment added by LotteryGeek (talk • contribs) 17:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
January 2021
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Donald Trump; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. You are also in violation of the discretionary sanctions on the page. This is your opportunity to self-revert. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)