User talk:Jerzeykydd/July09-Dec09

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Nebraska and Maine presidential Results, What's you opinion[edit]

Since these states give electoral votes based on congressional districts wouldn't it make sense create separate info boxes for each district similar to the main one in other articles (including all the candidates) article. Also I don't know how you feel but I think that putting these results at the top of the page (above the statewide) would make sense to better demonstrate that the statewide vote is not what is important in these states (how electoral votes are received). What's your opinion on the matter? Highground79 (talk) 05:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Election Labels[edit]

I am changing back the results labeling to comply with the correct definition of an election (an "Election" is a decision-making process by which a population (all voters who participate) chooses an individual to hold formal office - for presidential elections this is done by the state level with electors. As for the messages you have left on my talk page I am going to contact a number of administrator due to the inappropriate behavior you have displayed. You are actively engaging in an "Edit War" (because of your claim of ownership of the articles) and secondly you have displayed "threatening behavior" (don't push it or I'll get pissed off). While I am in no means frightened of you, this is not appropriate behavior on Wikipedia or in society.

My edits to the labels are attempting to distinguish the fact that only the statewide total is the election result (that which electoral votes are awarded for) The county and the congressional district results are a subset of the electorate and are less important because it doesn't matter who wins the most counties or congressional districts in most states (I'm trying to clarify this) the electoral votes are a all or nothing deal. While this may seem obvious to you wikipedia is used by people all over the world, and the our electoral college system is completely foreign to these users (it is important for the understanding of these users to distinguish the difference between the numbers that matter and the ones that do not). Highground79 (talk) 03:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

July 2009[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. You have been edit-warring on many articles within a short amount of time. You need to stop doing that and start to discuss on the articles' talk pages (which you can do by clicking "talk" on the top of the screen and posting a new comment by clicking "new section"). Otherwise, you will have to be blocked for edit-warring, as that is not tolerated here on the English Wikipedia. Thank you, MuZemike 07:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Response, and a heads up on some great resources[edit]

I got your message and would like to resolve this matter as soon as possible, so that neither one of us has to spend any more time on this issue. The reason that I was labeling the articles with "election results" - was because the name of the article (United States presidential election in South Carolina, 2008) describes the poll of voters who participated. I agree that it is important to include data such as the county results, and you have done a great deal of (helpful) work to develop the state result articles. I also think it is important to remember that the English language wiki is used by a great many users outside of the United States (Canada, England, etc) and these users may not be familiar with our election process (winner takes all). So I think it is extremely important to distinguish a hierarchy of the result data and make it clear that the county and congressional district results are not independent of the "statewide" (official result) but rather a breakdown of the official result. In thinking about how to resolve our impasse I stumbled upon a possible solution. In the Canadian federal election, 2008 article there are separate sections for "Results" and "Vote and seat summaries" - I propose that the means by which the electoral votes are awarded (statewide, except in Maine and Nebraska) be labeled as the result and other important results data (county and congressional districts) be in a separate section labeled as some thing similar to "Vote breakdown and summaries". Let me know what you think of this suggestion as soon as possible, so that this matter can be resolved. (I'm going to put one of the articles in this format, so that you have a chance to see exactly what I am proposing) I will add to this post a link to the article once I have changed it to the suggested format.

In a separate matter I wanted to make you aware of a helpful government website full of election results. the Office of the Clerk of the US house has a archive of election results (Note: Recapitulation Tables tables include all votes for federal office by party not specific to presidential) Some users myself included try to stay away for using sites such as David Leip's US Election Atlas because the numbers on the site sometimes do not match the official results. This is because it is rather routine for states and counties to report minor changes in the results (after the election has been certified). Examples of this include errors in calculation, misplaced ballots and the reporting of who received write-in votes (the allocation of write-in votes to specific candidates are often not included in certified results). The website Us election Atlas adjusts the vote totals to take into account these votes but the "official" government certified results are not adjusted. A general consensus has been reached over time, that whenever possible official government results should be used and listed since it is technically the definitive source. This is not to say there are not exemptions to the consensus. Another site that should be avoided when possible is this is because it is similar to Wikipedia and its content is generated by the sites users who sometimes do not have a dedication to accuracy and or are intentionally providing false results. So when possible use State or Federal government sites as your source even ahead of normally reliable results from CNN, BBC, NBC, etc. (also news organizations often dump the page after a few years whereas government sites can be expected to host the results indefinitely) - I have a list of government (both state and federal and a few for the major cities) websites which provide election results and I will post this list on your talk page in a few days.

In the meantime here are a few sites I find helpful (wiki community considers reliable) which provide results and additional election information.

  • Federal Election Commission - candidate, party, PAC financial reports and some election results - site is not very user friendly takes some time to get used to.
  • Ballot Access News Ballot Access News - helpful with matters of election law (provides updates on election/political court cases, third party and independent ballot access) Richard Winger, the sites owner is considered to be the leading expert on election law (has been an expert witness in many legal cases) - site mostly covers third parties but has a great reputation for avoiding bias.

I personally think it is kind of neat to see which of my neighbors have made political donations (and to who) - (note most contributions under $200 are not itemized and will not show up in searches)

One last thing I wanted to mention is that when you create result tables include all of the candidates rather then lumping all of the minor candidates into "others". There are two reasons I mention this A) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should strive for accurate detail B) If you do not list all the candidates you may incur the wrath of an angry Socialist, Libertarian etc. backer who may scream bias since there candidate was not included (as an example there are a surprisingly large number of Socialist Party USA, members on wikipedia)

Let me know what you think of my proposal and if you found the websites I mentioned helpful. Highground79 (talk) 20:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


I'm in total agreement with you your suggestion of a "Results Breakdown" section with subsections of By congressional district and By county. The "Results Breakdown" - section heading clearly establishes that the county/congressional district totals are not independent. The cause for concern I had previously was that people in places like say Mexico (I know bad example, English is not the first language) were the parliament awards seats both for proportional and by direct election could be confused. I glad we were able to work out the disagreement. Highground79 (talk) 07:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Good job, guys. I'm glad you two were able to work this out peacefully and without any blocks, bans, or protections. I hope you both continue to improve election articles. You're doing some great work. Timmeh 16:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Vermont elections[edit]

Please do not use WP:POV and media terms when describing material for the encyclopedia. The intent is not to inflame readers, it is to inform them. Boldfacing is reserved for article titles in accordance with WP:MOS. While we all depend on the media for information, we try to avoid media terms which are seldom informative. "Blue", for example, means nothing to someone from another country. Student7 (talk) 20:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

New York City mayoral election, 2009 (subsection headings)[edit]

Let me explain my reasoning. I agree that it looks strange to repeat "Registered Democratic candidates" under "Democrats" under "Candidates", but what looks best on the printed page doesn't work so well on Wikipedia. See WP:Headings. Since internal linking in Wikipedia jumps directly to subsections rather than down the familiar hierarchical "Candidates/Democrats/Announced" path, it can get confused when the same heading (at any level) appears twice in the same page. I also get perplexed when reading edit histories, edit summaries and watchlists with lines that say "Announced" without saying announced what? (I've added your talk page to my watchlist so that we can keep any exchanges on the same page.) —— Shakescene (talk) 22:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Presidential Election 2012 article[edit]

Hi there,

Myself and Timmeh have had a strong discussion about major change to this article. Before we did anything we wanted to get feedback regular editors of this page, William S. Saturn, Hysteria18, Jerzeykydd, Ratemonth, JayJasper, GoodDay, Qqqqqq, GageSkidmore, Reywas92, and FallenMorgan. Please send this to anyone else I may have left and please read the thread on Ruled Out and give us your feedback.

--Diamond Dave 16:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by David1982m (talkcontribs)

Jerzeykydd, please understand that what you are doing at the 2012 election article is edit warring. There is no consensus to separate the candidates, and as you can see on the talk page, we are still evenly divided and in debate over what constitutes "ruled out". You are free to give your opinion there as you've been doing, but any more additions of separate classifications of candidates against consensus will just be reverted. If you have any questions, I'll be watching this page, so you can reply here. Thanks. Timmeh (review me) 13:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Solution to Ruled Out Debate NEED YOUR FEEDBACK![edit]

Proposed solution to ruled out debate on [[1]]. Please submit your feedback. Thanks. David1982m (talk—Preceding undated comment added 14:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC).

Your edits to United States presidential election in California, 2008[edit]

I am not reverting your edits because I assume ownership over the article nor am I reverting your edits because I am a “fucking asshole”. I reverted you edits because we already had a discussion on the mater and I assumed that we came to an agreement because you stopped responding. I also reverted the edit because it does not comply with Wikipedia:Lead section. – Zntrip 19:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

party to mediation - United States presidential election in Vermont, 2008[edit]

United States presidential election in Vermont, 2008[edit]

Involved parties[edit]

  1. Student7 (talk · contribs), filing party
  2. Jerzeykydd (talk · contribs)
Filing party: you must serve all of these editors with notifications. See here for instructions.

Articles involved[edit]

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted[edit]

  • Explain in edit summaries
  • Discussion on article page
  • Request for comment
Filing party: Please ensure you have fully read this guide before filing.

Issues to be mediated[edit]

The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.

Additional issues to be mediated[edit]

Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there are more than two parties involved in this case.
  • Additional issue 1.
  • Additional issue 2.

Parties' agreement to mediate[edit]

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign within seven days, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only "Agree" or "Disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed, but can be made at the talk page.
  1. Agree. Student7 (talk) 18:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee[edit]

A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section; all comments should go on the talk page, unless a party is specifically requested to reply here by a Committee member.

Request for mediation not accepted[edit]

Exquisite-folder4.png A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/United States presidential election in Vermont, 2008.
For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 10:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Voting record additions to Member of Congress articles[edit]

You recently made several edits to member of congress articles on voting records. Please be aware that all articles on living persons must comport with policy on biographies of living persons and must be written with a neutral point of view. Edits saying that in spite of being "elected from a swing district" he/she votes with "liberal Democrats" can be construed as not following a neutral viewpoint. I have reverted a few of these edits, but have not touched the rest, since there are so many. Please be more cautious with your edits in the future.DCmacnut<> 20:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I went as reverted the rest of these edits. It's nothing personal, but I noticed a few other editors had raised concerns about original research about them as well. Our policies on living person articles ere on the side of caution when trying to add information that isn't sourced or insufficiently sourced. If you want to add them back, please be mindful of making sure they are presented in a neutral fashion and don't violate any of the guidelines at WP:BLP or WP:OR. Voting records sections have always been problematic. Votes are notable, but there have been concerns over what votes to list out of the hundreds cast by Members of Congress. In general, political positions should rely on statements by the official themselves or analysis of voting records by reliable sources, rather than Wikipedia editors applying our own analysis of their voting records by listing a select few votes. You may want to check out WikiProject Congress and offer your suggestions on to incorporate this information and improve these articles in the future.DCmacnut<> 21:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


HeyJerzykydd,thanks for your contributions. Please check out these links: Democratic Party, Libertarian Party, Green Party, Republican Party. These are all disambiguation pages, so they are not useful links for readers. If you think a link to a party name would be useful to a reader, please link correctly, e.g., to Democratic Party (United States), and don't link the disambiguation pages. Thanks. Ground Zero | t 02:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


Is a WP:BOT and doesn't have an opinion. At least not one to share with humans. Rich Farmbrough, 16:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC).

presidential election in California[edit]

Sorry I haven't responded to your messages sooner, I had surgery three weeks ago to remove a small malignant tumor from a tiny body cavity just below my ear canal in my left ear. Due to the surgery (discomfort/pain) and the medication my doctors have me on I have been unable to focus much attention on Wikipedia lately. I promise I'll take a look at the presidential election in California article and add my opinion either tonight or at the latest tomorrow. Highground79 (talk) 03:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

United States presidential election in California, 2008 lead section[edit]

Please be reasonable. No consensus was reached on the talk page for the lead. It wasn't even the subject of the recent discussion. Polling is not a substitute for discussion and the opinions of others are not a vote of confidence for your position; they are simply other editors' opinions. If you want to reach any sort of conclusion you have to be willing to have a discussion. I would like to know why you object to the lead that existed before your latest edit. As for the list of candidates, I assumed we reached a conclusion at the talk page as proposed by Highground79. – Zntrip 22:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The lead should be three to four paragraphs and summarize the article per the lead section guideline. Consensus does not have to be reached to satisfy that guideline. Timmeh 00:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

A longer lead is not necessarily a better one. This lead concisely summarizes the article. As a side note, is there any reason the word "California" is in bold in the current lead? – Zntrip 00:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Look, I'm not completely opposed to everything you do, I'm not trying to be an obstructionist, and I appreciate your contributions to articles. I disagree with some of your edits, and I would like to discuss them in the hope of reaching a consensus. I'll make some revisions to the article and if you disagree with any of them we can talk about it. Specifically I'll make minor changes to your lead, a minor capitalization edit, restore the list of candidates, and restructure the results section. I'm also going to move this discussion to the article's talk page. Furthermore I will not immediately revert any edits you might make, but I would appreciate a reason for the difference of opinion that could be the subject of a discussion. – Zntrip 06:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

map image[edit]

Why did you add File:Massachusetts Presidential Election Results by County, 2008.svg to Senate articles from other years?—Markles 23:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

'Generic opponent' polls and party shading[edit]

I used {{party shading/Independent}} rather than {{party shading/Republican}} for the Fox poll because, as far as I can tell, the pollster doesn't specify a party for its "someone else", meaning that the 48% will include both those who plan to vote for a Republican and those who plan to vote for some other candidate. However, shading the column grey is far from an ideal solution – perhaps a separate section for "Obama v. generic opponent" polls would be a good idea? Thanks. – Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 19:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Another election article[edit]

I have a suggestion of a subsection of an article for your review. It is located at Pensacola,_Florida#Elections. It seems pov to me but I can't quite put my finger on it. How does it look to you? Student7 (talk) 22:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! Student7 (talk) 14:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Your deceptive edit summary on Mike Huckabee[edit]

Please explain how this edit is a "reorganization". It is not. It is an outright deletion of content against best practices regarding summary style. Viriditas (talk) 07:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Not vandalism[edit]

Excuse me? Adding the photo of a candidate is not vandalism, as you called it reverting me without explanation: [2]. Reywas92Talk 02:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, you reverted me again but didn't notice that I added new information as well. I think we should use the common sense that the highly popular incumbent will be the nominee. If you insist that there be no picture, I will remove the useless infobox. I agree with the below comment. I think there is some guideline not to use infoboxes if you can't even fill in any parameters. Reywas92Talk 02:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Election infoboxes[edit]

Please stop adding infoboxes to the election articles. They serve no purpose until there are nominees. -Rrius (talk) 02:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Danny Tarkanian[edit]


This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Danny Tarkanian, and it appears to include a substantial copy of For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 22:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

New York City mayoral election, 2005[edit]

I went and fixed the placeholder issue. You were adding a female icon to a male candidate, that's why I was rv'ing; I should've just said that in the first place. Won't mess with it now, though I'm not a fan of them in election articles. Wizardman 06:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Danny Tarkanian[edit]

Hello. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Danny Tarkanian, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from (no clean version in history; see article's talk), and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under allowance license, then you should do one of the following:

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Danny Tarkanian saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'm confused that in your apparently effort to address the copyright problems, you simply removed some of the text. Wikipedia can only utilize material from other sources that are demonstrably public domain or licensed compatibly. Otherwise, all material must be written in our own words except brief quotations used in accordance with WP:NFC. After your edit, the article said:

Upon graduating Danny attended law school at the University of San Diego. Danny graduated 3rd in his class, magna cum laude and was also named to the Law Review. He practiced law for seven years. Today, Danny runs a real estate business and is co-director of the Tarkanian Basketball Academy, which teaches over 350 Clark County kids.

The source says

Upon graduating Danny attended law school at the University of San Diego. Danny graduated 3rd in his class, magna cum laude and was also named to the Law Review.... He subsequently practiced law for seven years.... Today, Danny runs a real estate business and is co-director of the Tarkanian Basketball Academy, which teaches over 350 Clark County kids.

I'm afraid this does not constitute writing in your own words, and it is does not help the copyright situation. The right to create abridgments and other close paraphrasing is reserved to the copyright holder as a derivative work. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
To avoid creating an unauthorized derivative, you should write the article from scratch in this temporary page. (You want to be careful to avoid paraphrasing too closely. The essay Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing contains some suggestions for rewriting that may help avoid these issues. The article Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches, while about plagiarism rather than copyright concerns, also contains some suggestions for reusing material from sources that may be helpful, beginning under "Avoiding plagiarism".) When the temporary page is completed, if it does not infringe the copyright of the source and if permission is not forthcoming for the other material, it will be used to replace the existing text. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


Please try to be more careful when using the rollback feature in future. Edits such as this to New York City mayoral election, 2005 and especially this to United States Senate election in Arkansas, 2010 are clearly not vandalism. You should consider re-reading Wikipedia:Vandalism, especially the what is not vandalism section. Thanks. – Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 23:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to badger you, but you still don't seem to understand what vandalism is. I would strongly recommend that you read Wikipedia:Vandalism and refrain from making accusations until you have a better understanding of the relevant policy. Thanks. – Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 22:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Sanford and Jindal debate[edit]

Hello. Thanks for asking for me to throw my opinion about Jindal and Sanford as potential candidates for President in 2012. I replied at the talk page, and were for the most part in agreement with your agruement. I will be checking back regularly to see what I can add. I hope it helps. Thanks, America69 (talk) 02:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)