User talk:Politicsnerd123

Politicsnerd123, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Politicsnerd123! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like ChamithN (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Relevant information

I wondered if it was worthwhile trying to agree a standard format for shadow cabinet member pages/the pages of the roles. Was keen to get your thoughts on why you feel shadowing is significant enough to be in the info-boxes as opposed to the body of the article or the shadow sec pages, much like the government equivalents list the prime minister, for example see Chancellor of the Exchequer.

My belief was that it is rare a shadow minister is chosen specifically because of who the government minister is (the one exception that comes to my mind is Ken Clarke being appointed as a big beast to take on Mandelson in 2009. If it was the case then government reshuffle would precipitate shadow reshuffles, which they seldom do.

Aware others have views on this, :@Alex B4: and others have commented on this in other forums.

Keen to hear your thoughts as to why it should be inlcluded.Member1494 (talk) 09:38, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries and explanations

Please note that as per WP:Edit summary it is good practice to provide an edit summary with your edits. This is especially important should you revert someone. If you revert another editor you should always provide an explanation for why you are reverting their edits, otherwise your edit may appear to be disruptive editing. Thanks. Canterbury Tail talk 21:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to check

Just to check this is Mr London's new account? I think it is but just wanted to make sure. If so, very good to have you back. Alex (talk) 02:46, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

no this not mr. london here. anyway have a good day :) Politicsnerd123 (talk) 12:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1999-2007 Scottish Executive merger

Hi there. Is there a consensus anyway for this mass merger of 1999-2007 Scottish Executive articles that you are undertaking? Best, Darren-M talk 21:13, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also concerned about this attempted mass merge that takes information from other pages without attribution. This was not a single coalition- the first coalition lasted until the 2003 election, a second coalition agreement was then reached after the 2003 election. Drchriswilliams (talk) 22:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was the same coalition government that was in office from 1999-2007. After the 2003 general election, the coalition continued in office for a second term. Politicsnerd123 (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Politicsnerd123, Thank you for your reply, but that was not my question. Are you acting on a consensus here, or is this of your own volition? Best, Darren-M talk 23:11, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was replying to @Drchriswilliams:. My own volition as per WP:MERGE Politicsnerd123 (talk) 23:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Politicsnerd123, Okay. Please self-revert and establish a consensus for this. The concerns raised by Drchriswilliams about the factual error of positioning this within one article merit discussion, I think. My own concerns are more that this is a substantial merge and should have been discussed prior to merger; WP:MERGE suggests you should only be bold for 'obvious' merges, which I do not think this is. Best, Darren-M talk 23:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see the point of having several articles for the same administration, it doesn’t make sense. Politicsnerd123 (talk) 23:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Politicsnerd123, That is not for you to decide independently if others indicate they object - you should self-revert here and open a merge discussion. Best, Darren-M talk 13:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

American politics DS alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

― Tartan357 ^Talk 01:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization

Hi. Wikipedia has a style guide, namely MOS:JOBTITLES, that says what should be capitalized and what should not be. "Prime minister" should not be. Section titles are also supposed to be in sentence case. Surtsicna (talk) 20:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]