User talk:JocularJellyfish/Archives/2017/November

This is an archive of User talk:JocularJellyfish. Please do not change it in any way. – JocularJellyfish ^Talk _Contribs 22:14, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of James R. Sweeney II

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on James R. Sweeney II requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Boleyn (talk) 15:14, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology of Assistant Attorney Generals for the OLC

Hello, I wanted to seek your opinion on the infobox templates for the AAGs - is there a good reason to exclude acting AAGs from the infobox chronology? I'd say the important question the infobox answers is "who heads the OLC?" and think including the Acting AAGs makes sense. Thanks in advance for your feedback.-Ich (talk) 12:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ich:, we have not included acting predecessors in the infoboxes for a while now. No cabinet secretary has them even with months-long waits so I thing the practice should be extended to lower-level officials. – JocularJellyfish ^Talk _Contribs 22:31, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JocularJellyfish: Okay, that makes sense. Two questions then: what should be in the infoboxes for the acting AAGs? And since Bradbury was both acting AAG and Principal Deputy AAG, making him de facto head of the OLC for four years (with two failed nominations), should he perhaps be considered an exception and included in the chronology?-Ich (talk) 07:37, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Appointer or Nominator

Note I posted the following to the user indicated, but I am going to copy this to several other users for their reference. Safiel (talk) 22:09, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A previous edit summary of yours (User:JoeM3120) read as such, "Federal judges are nominated by the president and condfirmed by the Senate, not appointed.". Your statement is in error from both a Constitutional and statutory point of view. There are THREE Constitutional steps. 1. Nomination, when the President sends the person's name to the Senate. 2. Confirmation (i.e. advice and consent) of the Senate is given. 3. Appointment. Once the Senate consents, the President APPOINTS the person to office by granting them a commission which is evidence of their appointment. The Senate's consent does NOT put the person in office and the President can, if he wishes, decline to appoint the person once Senate consent is given. It is the act of the President in appointing (granting the commission), that actually puts the person in office, NOT the action of Senate in giving advice and consent. Therefore, appointer is the more appropriate field and all arguments to the contrary are clearly in error. Additionally, both the Constitution and all federal statutes clearly use the word appoint. I am not going to revert at this time to avoid edit warring, but I intend to push this issue further in other venues. Safiel (talk) 22:09, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Wesley L. Fox, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:27, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Wesley L. Fox does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Chris Troutman (talk) 03:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]