User talk:Nevermore27

Political party strength in Vermont

Hi Nevermore27, Thank you for your recent contributions to Political party strength in Vermont. You appear to be knowledgable in the subject. However, without a reference that supports your edit and the edit of every other contributor to the page, it's impossible to know whether a given contribution is valid, or not. You could be a guiding light to others by providing references for your last two contributions! Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 15:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

US Attorneys

Hi, Nevermore27! I see you recently editing a whole slew of district court articles with "(added U.S. Attorney to infobox)." Can you justify this? The United States Attorney for a district is not part of its Court. (It's often true that they have an office in the same building as the Court or Courthouse, but that is not the same thing.) My inclination is that these edits are incorrect and should be reverted, but I wanted to discuss it with you first. Thanks! (Or maybe we should talk about it somewhere else?) jhawkinson (talk) 22:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

My thought was that District Courts and U.S. Attorneys are assigned to exactly the same districts; they are coterminous. Any suit filed against the federal government in any district court will be defended by that district's U.S. Attorney or his/her office. Any suit filed by the government against a citizen in a particular district will be prosecuted by that district's U.S. Attorney. While you are correct they are not the same office, they are inextricably linked. Many if not most of the pages for the Courts already list the U.S. Attorney. I just thought it would be better if they were included in the infobox.

They are indeed coterminous. I'm not sure it's true that any suit against the government will be defended by that district's US Attorney; while an AUSA almost always enters an appearance, it's fairly common for lead counsel to be from other parts of the DOJ. In any event, they are linked, but not inextricably. The links are quite "extricable" -- they are well-defined and breakable. I agree that some pages list the US Attorney. But that doesn't mean the US Attorney is an attribute of the Court, which is what placement in the Infobox implies. So, I guess...I am not convinced. But we should probably seek another opinion? I suppose perhaps on Template talk:Infobox U.S. district court with a referral from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law? Do you have other suggestions on how to resolve this, or a more convincing argument, or a better choice of venue for the discussion? Thanks. jhawkinson (talk) 07:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I can't come up with a different argument that could convince you, but I agree it's not going to be decided by you and I alone.

Well, you may be more optimistic than I. It could well be that no one else is interested, in which case it would be decided by you and I. In the absence of better venue suggestions I suppose I'll write something up tomorrow (US/Eastern). Incidently, Ibrahim v. Department of Homeland et al (3:06-cv-00545 in cand) appears to be an example of a suit against the federal government with no appearance by the local USA (though they were summonsed), but only by some DOJ folks from DC. Not that it really matters. jhawkinson (talk) 07:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Done, with this discussion mirrored there. jhawkinson (talk) 19:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Why do you keep removing the Libertarian candidate from the KY 2014 Election page?

Why do you keep removing the Libertarian candidate from United States Senate election in Kentucky, 2014 ? According to sample ballots from Kentucky Secretary of State sample ballots for 2014 David Patterson is the Libertarian Party candidate and is on the ballot.

Removing candidates, no matter their party, poll numbers, or likelyhood of winning or losing is a disservice to users seeking information about the election and the campaign.

It also appears that there is a strong risk of edit warring and thats not helpful to anyone. Can you explain why you keep removing the Libertarian candidate? Can you cite a Wikipedia policy justifying this edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freiheit2014 (talk • contribs) 03:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm unaware of a specific rule, but there's a guideline of 5%, as evidenced by the Template:US Third Party Election where only performances over 5% are listed. Whether we like it or not, we live in a two-party system, and it's hard for a third party to break through that. No one is suppressing information, all of Patterson's information and links to his website are preserved on the page, but the infobox should reflect the reality that McConnell and Grimes are the only candidates who are going to truly matter to the election's outcome. Nevermore27 (talk) 04:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Now that Patterson is above 5% again, are you going to replace him in the top infographic? Patterson's polling is also greater than the margin between these two candidates, so the idea that he is irrelevant to the outcome is incorrect as well. Bnewmark42 (talk) 02:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

If there's another poll with him above 5%, I'll replace him myself. Only three points of data make a pattern. He's polled at 5% in two now. Nevermore27 (talk) 17:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Your ani posting

As ANI is a high visibility page, posting links to your being doxed may not be want you want. See WP:OVERSIGHT to contact the folks who can make the edit go away from almost everyone's sight.

Also, please see WP:SIGLINK -- your signature needs to contain link(s) to your user, talk, or contributions page. NE Ent 03:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I also emailed Oversight, thank you. Nevermore27 (talk) 04:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Global account

Hi Nevermore27! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 17:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Recent edit to United States House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you removed some content from United States House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 09:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Gamrat

I see you've made some changes to the composition template for the Michigan House. I was going to do something, but was wondering how to do it. The Democratic field also needs to be divided as Harvey Santana was also expelled from his caucus earlier in the year. But, I also wonder if maybe we shouldn't do anymore than simply put an astericks by each of the numbers and add a footnote since while these two are expelled from their caucuses, neither has stopped caucusing with their respective party? This isn't like Olumba in the previous session who seperated himself from the caucus. This banishment seems to only apply to daily caucus meetings. What do you think? --Criticalthinker (talk) 07:52, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I didn't know about Santana, and I would do the same thing with him as with Gamrat. The shading part doesn't necessarily refer to voting power, because theoretically on any issue any member of the House could vote against his party for any reason. It refers to the caucuses. So noting their separation from the caucus is important. Nevermore27 (talk) 08:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Democrat(ic)

Thank you for the bulk corrections. What is this Democrat term out of tense? It seems to be a Rush Limbaugh epithet form of usage that has found its way into wikipedia. Trackinfo (talk) 19:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Yep Trackinfo, check out Democrat Party (epithet) Nevermore27 (talk) 21:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking there needed to be an article about a developing situation. Obviously since it originated in 1940, there is. Trackinfo (talk) 22:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Message

I am sorry. The "welcome" message is automatically generated by the tool. An IP has been playing around with the "chief justice" designation on and off for some time. I misread your edit as just one more in the series. Sorry again. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:12, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

No worries. Apologies for reacting so strongly. Capitalismojo Nevermore27 (talk) 22:22, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Political party strength in Massachusetts#Merge or separate the terms of re-elected politicians?

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Political party strength in Massachusetts#Merge or separate the terms of re-elected politicians?. Thanks. —GoldRingChip 11:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC)Template:Z48

Michigan House Composition Change

Hey, I see that you were the last one to update the composition of the Michigan House. I tried updating it, myself, but can't for the life of me figure out the column/row template. Can you add the resignation of Brandon Dillon (http://woodtv.com/2015/08/03/dillon-resigns-from-house-to-head-mi-dems/) as of August 3? It should show 45/1 for Democrats with one vacancy. For the time being, the Republican caucus is still the same, though that could be changing very soon (possible two vacancies). Thanks. Hopefully, after you update it I'll be able to see what you did. --Criticalthinker (talk) 13:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Done! Criticalthinker Nevermore27 (talk) 22:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Please don't remove content from pages...

...without explaining why. Krett12 (talk) 13:35, 20 September 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) 16:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Repeating reverted edit

You deleted info in the Icelandic presidential election, 2016 that I had previously reinserted. If you want to repeat an edit that has been reverted by a registered user and with an explanation you should discuss it at the talk page, not just repeat your edit.--Batmacumba (talk) 21:28, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

You and I appear to be the only people making repeated edits to the page, so putting it on the Talk page would not solve anything. The information you wish to include on the page is irrelevant. Yes, the Left-Green Movement is a relatively small party, but it is still a party with representation in the Althingi, so Katrín is relevant no matter what. The fact that she led several polls is irrelevant considering she's not running. And the clause "but has declared she will not run" is triply pointless seeing as she is under the "Declined" heading. I will add a polling table so her past poll leads can be shown, but information that is preempted by subsequent events is not relevant. Nevermore27 (talk) 17:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I have moved you answer over here, as there is no reason to answer it on my page when I first raised the issue over here. It is obviously not irrelevant that she was the leading candidate before she declined - and the debate about wether it is or not it does belong on the talk page as it is related to the article and others might have an opinion. It is generally unhelpful to remove info you personally find "irrelevant" as it is subjective and such info can be useful to others.--Batmacumba (talk) 19:07, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Batmacumba, The way to show that Katrín was leading polls before her exit is to have a Polling section; it does not belong in the section where it shows that she has already left the race. It's not a question of relevant or irrelevant, it's where on the page the information properly belongs. Nevermore27 (talk) 22:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Viðreisn

Why did you move Viðreisn to Restoration? (which is just one possible translation chosen by a Wiki editor and not an official English name). It was mentioned on the talk page that the name isn't official and there was a note in the text that it should be replaced whether was an "official English name". I think it should be moved back until they decide on an official English name (there are other possibilities: Awakening, Renaissance, Rising Again, Rebirth). Its generally better to discuss page moves before you make them--Batmacumba (talk) 12:35, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Edit summaries

I noted your recent edit to Nebraska gubernatorial election, 1990. As best I can tell, your change consisted solely of rearranging the sections, collecting all the material on the Democratic primary into one section and all the material on the Republican primary into another.

I'm inclined to agree with your plan of organization (and wish I'd thought of it first!) However, I have to complain about the fact that you didn't leave an edit summary. Looking at your contribution history, I see that you generally don't. I'd like to urge you to change your practice.

Unfortunately, articles on political subjects tend to draw lots of problem edits—vandalism, POV-pushing, and WP:NOTNEWS violations among them. For us article-watchers, failure to include an edit summary is a red flag: it can be a sign of an editor who's trying to change the article without drawing the attention of other editors, or the mark of a new editor who's not familiar with Wikipolicy and doesn't know about WP:SOAP. A brief explanation of what you're doing can save these article-watchers the time and effort that they'd otherwise have to devote to checking out your edit in detail.

Again, I've got no problem at all with your edit to the 1990 election article; I think it works better than my original organizing scheme. However, a concise edit summary like "Reorganized sections" wouldn't have taken much of your time, and would've saved me the time I spent going through the diff in detail. — Ammodramus (talk) 21:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up Ammodramus! I will try to explain myself in the future :) Nevermore27 (talk) 22:01, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Iceland 2016 parliamentary election polls for august?

Since you've provided many of the poll numbers on the Icelandic_parliamentary_election,_2016 page, I wonder if you know why there seems to be a sudden cut-off in polls for the 2015 parliamentary election in Iceland after the end of July? I haven't found any more recent numbers with a web search either, so I wonder if there is some prohibition against polls X months before the election or something. Anyway, if new numbers become available, I would be happy to update the graph. Amaurea (talk) 18:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Amaurea, the only source for polls I have is electograph, and the last poll I saw through there was July 29, so I'm also unclear why there's a bit of a poll desert right now. As far as I know there's not ban on polls at present, if at all. I'll certainly update as soon as I see them. User:Batmacumba is also pretty on top of the Iceland situation, not sure if you've also contacted them. Nevermore27 (talk) 08:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

There are no ban on polling in Iceland at any time (such bans would be unheard of in all Scandinavian countries and considered an infringement on free speech). Only Gallup and MMR poll the Althing election regularly (both approximately once a month). The University of Iceland, Maskina and Fréttablaðið only do polls when there is something interesting going on (and that isn't the case right now). The last Gallup and MMR polls are from late July, so we will presumably get new ones very soon.--Batmacumba (talk) 20:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from United States Senate Committee on Armed Services into Historical member rosters of the United States Committee on Armed Services. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 15:41, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge

You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Nevermore27. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Interview invitation from a Wikipedia researcher in the University of Minnesota

I am Weiwen Leung, a student at the University of Minnesota. I am currently conducting a study on how people on the LGBT+ Wikipedians group use and contribute to Wikipedia.

Would you be willing to answer a short 5 minute survey? If so, please email me at leung085@umn.edu. It would be helpful if you could include your Wikipedia username when emailing.

Thank you, Weiwen