User talk:Wasted Time R
Archives: May 2005–January 2007 • February 2007–October 2007 • November 2007–February 2008 • March 2008–July 2008 • August 2008–December 2008 • January 2009–July 2009 • August 2009–March 2010 • April 2010–December 2010 • January 2011–December 2011 • January 2012–December 2012 • January 2013–December 2013 • January 2014–December 2014 • January 2015–December 2016
... used to be true
- 1 DYK for Tony Bennett at the Talk of the Town
- 2 Nomination of List of Puffy AmiYumi tours for deletion
- 3 hey
- 4 Questions Regarding Early Presidential Primaries (1940 and Back)
- 5 You've got mail!
- 6 DYK nomination of Electrada
- 7 DYK for Electrada
- 8 DYK for Hughes Dynamics
- 9 Donald Trump the Republican presumptive nominee
- 10 DYK for Informatics General
- 11 Nomination of Campaigns and Elections for deletion
DYK for Tony Bennett at the Talk of the Town
Nomination of List of Puffy AmiYumi tours for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Puffy AmiYumi tours 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/List of Puffy AmiYumi tours until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Didn't notice you had snuck back in! I don't know about you, but I just don't have the heart to work on the one or the stomach to work on the other. Good to see you though! Tvoz/talk 20:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, to the extent I'm here at all I'm kind of focusing on more obscure things now. I'm not even qualified to write on what I used to – for the first three months I couldn't bear to look at the news at all, and now I'm just reading a few stories in the paper, nothing on radio or tv – too visceral an impact. The only political article I've had any real interest in is Impeachment process against Richard Nixon, for reasons that don't need much explaining ... Wasted Time R (talk) 01:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Questions Regarding Early Presidential Primaries (1940 and Back)
- I've been working collecting data on the results for the Democratic Presidential caucuses or state conventions that were held in earlier years, 1940 being the starting point given I was interested at the time in the Anti-Third Term movement that had sprung up then, and while I can't access all the data in question anyway (I'm using the New York Times as a source, but I'm not a subscriber and so can't look at the articles in detail), I've provided them in the talk pages. Having gotten down to 1928 now, however, I'm not certain how best to display the information given, and I'm not sure if there really is a precedent(s) for it given the operational differences between the Modern Primary and the more Archaic Primary of yesteryear. For example;
- In 1928 Al Smith clearly won the Democratic Presidential Preference Primary in Ohio over Senator Atlee Pomerene, but the latter was awarded the entirety of the delegation. The situation in question is in an article I provided on the talk page for the '28 Democratic Primaries, but when you have delegates not being bound or awarded based on the results of a Primary, should that be counted as a separate contest? How should we display that on a map? Should one be given preference?
- Depending on the year in question you either end up with a handful, none, or a whole slew of favorite-son candidates ready to represent State delegations, and these candidates technically have "won" delegates. However in some cases, like those I identified for the 1968 Republican nomination race, are far more than the infobox could possibly handle when combined with the actual candidates (even if we are just talking about candidates and favorite sons that won delegates, that would make 17). Should we give preference based on delegates won? On actual candidates vs. Favorite Sons? What about if they've withdrawn and endorsed a candidate? Should Favorite Sons be combined somehow (for map and infobox purposes) and explained separately in another section?
- In a number of the Presidential Primaries and even Caucuses I have encountered language that the delegates in question are officially unpledged or uninstructed, but have a strong preference or are generally understood for being for a certain candidate. Under those conditions, should those delegations be considered Unpledged, or should they be considered as being for the candidate? Should the votes of those delegations be included in a candidate's vote total?
- These are the major questions at the moment. I'll also be asking a few others Presidential Elections Wikiproject as well to chime in, so if you have any ideas on how best I should proceed, I'd ask that the responses be put into Talk:Democratic Party presidential primaries, 1932. Thanks ahead of time. --Ariostos (talk) 03:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for getting back to me. Now, I do wish that I did have the money available to subscribe to the New York Times, but I'm at that awkward point where I'm attending College and only working odd jobs for the most part, stuck in the parent's basement for the time being (literally). In terms of priorities of how best to apportion the money I do have on hand, it isn't far up there. Should I happen to somehow make a fair bit more though and so have disposable cash on hand, I'll consider subscribing to the Times. Now I'm familiar with the problems associated with the map and results for the 1972 Democratic Primaries (and the Chisholm section; nice work by the way), hell I think I made the present horrid abomination of a map that is being used, and I believe (and indeed have considered) the method used for displaying the 2012 Republican Primary results as being the best option going forward. The problem with this however is that I was hoping to establish some kind of consensus, fearing that major changes unilaterally would be redacted in the future for not following consensus, and the last couple times I've tried to bring matter to the Project they've fallen flat. I might do it again anyway though, as it would be better the effort is made then not in the long run, and for documentation purposes. In the case of contests won, I really don't think there is a good solution beyond counting Primaries and Caucuses, real or not, whilst giving preference to delegates won. It becomes a bit difficult to properly tabulate a result when with, say, the 1932 New Hampshire Democratic Primary the slate as a whole is Uncommitted, but you have Pro-Roosevelt folk and Pro-Smith folk both jockeying for votes to get onto that slate; how do get that across within the given guidelines? Anyway, thanks for getting back to me. --Ariostos (talk) 23:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- Well, that's what I thought in regards to the Times; unfortunately it seems that North Shore Community's access only goes back as far as 1980 (though they admitted they once had total access), and the Public Library here in Wakefield is in a similar situation. I don't know, I'll think of something in the short-term, though long-term I may well just end up subscribing to the Times.
- I do agree that the labeling of these contests as Presidential Primaries is a bit of a misnomer given how few there were, and fewer still that actually allocated delegates based on their results, and a change in the titling of the article should be in the cards as well as the opening.
- Contests won I believe used to be States won, but then people were reminded that you had some territories and commonwealths in the mix, as well as some States having multiple contests in selecting their delegates (such as Texas for the Democrats in '88 and '08), leading to the present term which I believe is essentially just "Primaries+Caucuses Won". That can just be converted to including State Conventions (if it doesn't already). As for favorite sons, well, I'd argue we should just consider them the same as other candidates, though with the caveat that they were principally a "favorite son"; the only caveat to that however would be if the delegation was technically Unpledged but strongly favored a candidate, in which case I would have the candidate not having won the contest, but still having won the delegation (as soft delegates). It's far from perfect, but it's the best method I can think of in terms of accounting for what was on the ballot and what the delegates and newspapers were saying.
- In light of this I'm going to be creating a new table/format for the Primaries and State Conventions, concentrating far less visually on the results of the contests and more on the contests themselves, while also trying to attribute delegates won where I can. Only problem at the moment is trying to determine how best to display in this new table those State Conventions that selected uninstructed delegates that strongly favored a particular candidate; liable to just be yet another caveat under the Uninstructed label. --Ariostos (talk) 17:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- Alright, so this is what the new results box I made is going to look like, with examples of what the various types of contests are going to look like.
|Democratic Presidential Nominating State Conventions and Primaries|
|Date||State||Contest Type||Candidate||Votes Won (#)||Votes Won (%)||Delegates Won||Reference(s)|
|March 12||New Hampshire||Primary||Uninstructed
(Support Franklin D. Roosevelt)
100 / 100 (100%)
8 / 8 (100%)
|April 2||Wisconsin||Primary||Franklin D. Roosevelt||322,991||
75.35 / 100 (75%)
21 / 24 (88%)
|John Nance Garner||105,662||
24.65 / 100 (25%)
3 / 24 (13%)
|May 7||California||Primary||Franklin D. Roosevelt||723,782||
74.05 / 100 (74%)
44 / 44 (100%)
|John Nance Garner||114,594||
11.72 / 100 (12%)
9.28 / 100 (9%)
|Ellis E. Patterson||48,337||
4.95 / 100 (5%)
|May 13||North Dakota||State Convention||Franklin D. Roosevelt||-||-||
16 / 16 (100%)
You've got mail!
DYK nomination of Electrada
Hello! Your submission of Electrada at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! SL93 (talk) 08:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
DYK for Electrada
DYK for Hughes Dynamics
Donald Trump the Republican presumptive nominee
I believe you were the first editor of Mitt Romney's 2016 anti-Trump speech to use the word "presumptive". I invite you to add any comment you may have on a discussion at Talk:Attempted assassination of Donald Trump#Presumptive nominee. —Anomalocaris (talk) 03:09, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Anomalocaris: this is one of the reasons I've pretty much stopped working on current political articles – the having to go through hoops to use a simple and accurate phrase or term or word in an article that no journalist or scholar would object to. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:25, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- I understand. Attempted assassination of Donald Trump isn't a current political event; it happened June 18, 2016, and is not much discussed today. As it happens, for this article, we have an editor who hasn't accepted facts, but will accept what other Wikipedians say. There are dozens of articles that acknowledge that on or about May 3, 2016, Donald Trump became the presumptive Republican nominee, but for some reason this particular editor is fighting it at Attempted assassination of Donald Trump.
DYK for Informatics General
Nomination of Campaigns and Elections for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Campaigns and Elections until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Light2021 (talk) 21:33, 4 July 2017 (UTC)