Jump to content

User talk:Politicsfan4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by GoodDay (talk | contribs) at 04:12, 27 August 2022 (→Veep candidate pages). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Main Page Talk page Contributions

Welcome!

Hello, Politicsfan4! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 20:31, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

November 2020

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in John Tyler, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Please see MOS:OVERLINK. Regarding the link to Virginia during the Civil War, please discuss that on the talk page. Peaceray (talk) 20:33, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

•Thank you, I will keep this in mind! Politicsfan4 (talk) 20:41, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 United States gubernatorial elections map

Hello. I changed File:2020 gubernatorial election results map.svg to a version with more detailed outlines, an accurate representation of the Northern Mariana Islands, and all territories closer to their true locations, similar to File:USStateandTerritorialControl2020elections.svg. I also changed the color of Puerto Rico closer to what the PNP uses and for better contrast with the white background. Then I edited the polygons in {{2020 United States gubernatorial elections imagemap}} to match the new map. Why did you revert my edits? Did something not look right? Perhaps you had to refresh your cache to see the updated image. Heitordp (talk) 03:56, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Heitordp: Thanks for the message! I reverted them because they were not consistent with other gubernatorial elections maps, see File:2018 United States gubernatorial election results.svg and File:2016 gubernatorial election results map.svg for examples. Politicsfan4 (talk) 04:55, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick reply. File:2014 gubernatorial election results map.svg is also different, so I didn't think that it was necessary to keep exactly the same shape in all years. Would it be acceptable if I changed all election maps that include territories? And for now, may I at least use the different color for Puerto Rico? The previous maps don't have a color for the PNP. Heitordp (talk) 05:18, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the 2014 map is weird (I'm getting around to fixing it) and inconsistent, but if you take a look at every other gubernatorial map, they have the same shapes as the 2016 and 2018 versions (also, take a look at its file history: it used to have the consistent shapes). About the PNP color, I wouldn't change it, as the party shading template is typically used for the colors on American election maps, and the PNP's shading (Template:Party shading/New Progressive Party (Puerto Rico)) is the one already in place on the 2020 map. Overall, I would just leave the status quo, as both the existing shapes and colors are the most consistent between maps (also, note that it would be laborious to also have to change the shapes in each of the imagemaps). Thanks! Politicsfan4 (talk) 05:34, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Politicsfan4: Sorry if I'm insisting too much, but I still think that the maps need some small improvements, described below. They would be consistent and not difficult to make.

  1. I'd like to fix the shape of the Northern Mariana Islands, as the "four aligned dots" look nothing like the real archipelago, and to swap its position with American Samoa to reflect its proximity to Guam. This change has already been done in the blank map File:Blank USA, w territories.svg and in the election maps from 1990 to 1999. It would require only a small adjustment in the image maps, as they use rectangles for these territories. I'm willing to do this change for all years since 2000. Would you accept this? The maps before 1990 don't show territories but maybe I can add them later too.
  2. The colors in the party shading templates are meant to be used as background colors in cell tables containing black text. They are too light to be used on maps with white background. Indeed, the Democratic and Republican "light" colors on the maps are actually darker than their shading templates, and all 3 shades of the PNP in File:Puerto Rico Governor 2020.svg are darker than its shading template as well. In addition, political parties have other templates with darker colors, to be used in table cells containing white or no text, such as Template:New Progressive Party (Puerto Rico)/meta/color used in 2020 United States gubernatorial elections#Puerto Rico and File:United States Governors map.svg. I understand that the election maps use lighter colors for "hold", so I suggest either a light version of Template:New Progressive Party (Puerto Rico)/meta/color or one of the shades in File:Puerto Rico Governor 2020.svg. I prefer the former to make it more different from the Democratic color. Either would be an improvement, as Puerto Rico is barely visible on the map with the current color. If you agree, I can also make this change to previous election maps for consistency.
  3. Should we also color DC in years when the mayor is elected? DC is mentioned in the articles for some years and already linked in the image maps. If we are not going to color DC, I suggest removing the circle and leaving only its actual shape, like the maps that don't show territories. Thanks. Heitordp (talk) 00:23, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Heitordp: Thanks for leaving the message. I definitely agree with your suggestions concerning the Northern Mariana Islands, as the shapes should be fixed. I also agree with your suggestions about coloring in the District of Columbia. I would recommend coloring it in blue on the maps, instead of removing it entirely. Finally, now that I have taken a closer look, I agree with your suggestion about changing the PNP color on the 2020 map. Also, the 2016 gubernatorial map has Puerto Rico colored in Democratic for some reason, so I would change that to the PNP color as well. Thanks! Politicsfan4 (talk) 00:53, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll start making these changes. Heitordp (talk) 01:37, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1972 Delaware Map

Hey politicsfan4,

I am not sure how to appropriately source an svg, but I can provide the resources I used to create the image.

I found the results in this PDF: https://elections.delaware.gov/electionresults/pdfs/1972.pdf.

I drew the House Districts (which are the lowest level of results available) by hand based on their legal descriptions here: https://delcode.delaware.gov/sessionlaws/ga126/chp280.shtml

Let me know if I can help more. I should've sourced this when I made it.

SpeedMcCool (talk) 19:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I was just making sure that there was an accurate source, as there were none listed. Thank you! -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 19:09, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up

Hi! I was just checking my watchlist, and you popped up. I noticed on your talk page that you had an AfC submission, so I thought you might like to know that you don't need that once you've become autoconfirmed. I didn't know this for some time, and skipping AfC makes life a bit easier for the reviewers. You can just make a redlink in your sandbox, and create it from there! Thanks, Thanoscar21talkcontributions 22:03, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Thanoscar21: Thanks! My account is new to Wikipedia, so I have not yet quite adjusted. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 22:16, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:26, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar is awarded to especially tireless editors who contribute an especially large body of work without sacrificing quality. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:26, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Fixing" redirects

Hi! You may have missed my concerns about your redirect "fixing". This practice is entirely unhelpful. There are several guidelines stating so and explaining why. Please have a look at WP:NOTBROKEN, MOS:NOPIPE and WP:NOPIPE. Surtsicna (talk) 10:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Surtsicna: Thank you! I was not fully aware of this before. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 13:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions 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-1932 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.

--Ymblanter (talk) 09:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions violation

Hello. Your edit to Donald Trump violated the active arbitration remedies in effect on that page, as Talk:Donald Trump, which states:

"24-hr BRD cycle: If a change you make to this article is reverted, you may not reinstate that change unless you discuss the issue on the talk page and wait 24 hours (from the time of the original edit)."

Please revert yourself immediately, to avoid arbitration enforcement sanctions. Thank you.   Spartan7W §   16:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Spartan7W: Literally the same thing happened to you. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the lede explicitly states to not change the language without discussion, which you did. I was just reverting it back to what it was. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 16:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I never know what to say for a subject header

Hey Politicsfan4, my name is Rebestalic

Make sure you follow community consensus! :) I saw your edit on the opening paragraph of Donald Trump--remember you're not supposed to edit it! I am aware you did have a discussion on it but I mean, there wasn't a consensus supporting your idea--6-2 majority to have no change.

Rebestalic[leave a message....] 01:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hello

I can agree with your username I am also a politic fan lol :D --Ilikememes128 (talk) 21:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ӜҪЪӣұС

"18–1" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 18–1. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 30#18–1 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 18:06, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Biden RfC

Since your interested in politics, I'm inviting you to comment on a RfC on Joe Bidens page. There really haven't been any new voices, and we need some new commenters. Heres the link: Talk:Joe Biden#RfC: Section on gaffes. - Sincerely, Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC) :)[reply]

My county results on county pages keep getting reverted

Hello! These users Adolphus79 and Magnolia677 are accusing me of adding county results from 1880 to 1908 to some county pages and I’m doing nothing wrong. I saw the county results on their state's election pages on Wikipedia despite Wikipedia not being a reliable source and both users keep reverting my results when I saw the results. I don’t want more trouble and I don’t know how to stop them. TylerKutschbach (talk) 05:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TylerKutschbach: As long as there is a reliable source for the changes, then I don't see anything wrong with it. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 13:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did put a reliable source for them but even with the source gets reverted too. https://www.ourcampaigns.com/PresidentList.html this is the source I used for the 1880 to 1908 results and if you click on the state name there’s a link to it and will even show history details and it’ll even show a map for some county results from those times and I think they’re not clicking on the state links. TylerKutschbach (talk) 14:54, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TylerKutschbach: Then I have no idea why it was reverted. On an unrelated note, have you seen the message that I left on your talk page? -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 14:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I saw the message and I’ll fix it as the best I can TylerKutschbach (talk) 20:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 20:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The ourcampaigns website is user generated, like a wiki, and the user that created that page (or added the content) has done nothing to provide a source for the information. That means it completely fails Wikipedia's reliability and verifiability guidelines. - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Adolphus79: That may be, but good luck removing it entirely from Wikipedia, as numerous (probably hundreds) of election maps and results pages cite it as a source. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 23:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tim Mahoney, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Hill. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Served as" vs. "was"

Hi Politicsfan4, I invite you to engage in a discussion at Talk:Calvin Coolidge#"Served as" vs. "was" to avoid further ping-pong on this choice of language. Let's see if we can develop a consensus through discussion. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 22:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2018 Michigan's 13th congressional district special election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brenda Jones.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring?

You do realise you've breached the 1RR at Joe Biden. -- GoodDay (talk) 07:05, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a talk page section open - please make you case there and stop edit warring or you are likely to be sanctioned -----Snowded TALK 07:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GoodDay and Snowded: Understood - Thank you. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 14:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"MAGA Patriot Party" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect MAGA Patriot Party. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 13#MAGA Patriot Party until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 20:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Virginia county results on your 1880 presidential map

The Democrats and Readjusters were two different tickets. The book I used said not to count them as the same. As the article says, "The Readjuster ticket received 31,527 votes, but the Funder Democrats took 96,449 votes, enough to defeat the Republicans, whose slate had 84,020." So I'd say the map of Virginia 1880 results is incorrect since it shows the Readjuster ticket and the Funder Democrats results combined as one ticket. I noticed this new map a few weeks ago and thought the same thing before I signed in and saw your question. Tilden76

Trump template

Take a look at Obama's template as shown here:

Also Bush's.

Valjean (talk) 05:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Valjean: Template:Barack Obama series doesn't say "44th President of the United States", just "President of the United States", likewise for Template:George W. Bush series. I'm fine with the addition of the number of the presidency, but I would suggest including it in every other template for consistency. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 12:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! I see that I confused this template with the box above it, which always mentions the number (for all presidents). Your reversion seems proper.
We still have a problem with the first line of Trump's template stating that he is still the president, unlike the templates for other former presidents. All the templates should be standardized. For convenience, here are some links:
  1. Template:Joe Biden series
  2. Template:Donald Trump series (the line "President of the United States" should be lower down, after the type of content found on the templates for the other presidents)
  3. Template:Barack Obama series
  4. Template:George W. Bush series
  5. Template:Bill Clinton series
  6. Template:George H. W. Bush series
  7. Template:Ronald Reagan series
Valjean (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Making a map

Hello.I saw some great political maps in your user page. I am interested in making maps as you do and I want to make some county maps of Isfahan Province. What software should I use to design maps? پخش مطلب (talk) 04:57, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@پخش مطلب: - Hey, thanks for asking. The maps that you saw on my user page were all derived from other existing political maps, and all I did was edit the source code to change the specific results colors. For example, File:South Dakota Senate Election Results by County, 2020.svg that I uploaded was derived from File:South Dakota Senate Election Results by County, 2014.svg, and I just changed the counties' fill hex color codes under "Inspect element" in Chrome, and saved the new edited map to my computer, where I then uploaded it to Wikipedia. I am not that experienced with mapmaking, but from what I know, if there are existing SVG political maps that you would like to edit, then I would suggest this method (as it is the only one that I know of). If you want to create political maps of places where there are none existing, I would suggest using software such as Inkscape to draw your map. I would suggest making an SVG map, rather than a PNG version, as it is much higher quality and easier to edit, since you can edit its code. Just search "Inkscape map making SVG tutorial" in Google and videos should pop up. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask me. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 01:17, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For the example that you gave, Isfahan Province already has a county map under this file: File:Isfahan counties.svg. I would suggest going into the map's code itself and editing what you want from there. This can be easily accomplished in Google Chrome or Microsoft Edge by right-clicking where you want to edit on the map, and then clicking "Inspect", or alternatively clicking Ctrl+Shift+I will get you there. A source code sidebar should pop up on your screen, and you can edit it from there, by changing the colors ("fill="), border colors ("stroke="), border width ("stroke-width="), among other aspects. Once you have finished, scroll to the very top of the sidebar, right-click, and then click "copy element". Make sure you copy all elements that you want to save. If you are using Windows, paste all copied elements into Microsoft Notepad, and save it as an SVG file by adding ".svg" to the end of the file name. That's all there is. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 01:29, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for helping me.I passed all the steps you taught me. After saving the Notepad file and adding svg to end of the file name, the edited image does not appear. What do you think the main problem is?پخش مطلب (talk) 10:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@پخش مطلب: Hey, I'm not sure what went wrong if you followed all the steps completely. What is showing up on your screen? Is it just blank, or does the original image appear? Perhaps the problem could be that not all elements were pasted into notepad. Also, make sure to add ".svg" to the end of the filename, not just "svg". -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 14:02, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. It is blank and this sentence appears : (( windows Photo Viewer can not open this picture because the file appears to be damaged corrupted or is too large. ))پخش مطلب (talk) 14:41, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@پخش مطلب: This makes more sense now. Try to open it in a browser, such as Chrome, instead of Photo viewer, and it should work better. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 14:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is with Windows and I have to use Inkscape software. Thank you for your guidance and for your attention to this matter.پخش مطلب (talk) 20:23, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent rv on Deb Haaland

Hi, So I saw that you reverted an addition to Deb Haaland's infobox, taking away the Vice Chair position. If you believe that those positions aren't notable, you may want to check this, the same new user has been adding them to a lot of politicians in recent days. I've been working on rving a lot of unnecessary edits he's made. –Aaronw1109 (talk) (contribs) 08:39, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

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 discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes. 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 09:49, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adolf Hitler

You are a 4-month old account, so I don't want to bite a newbie, but your edits on this article are verging into edit warring, which you really don't want to do. If you have problems with the infobox as I have corrected it, to remove inaccurate information, post your argument on the article talk page, and DO NOT EDIT WAR.

Your next revert will get you a real warning, and the one after that a report to the Edit Warring Noticeboard, where an administrator will decide if you should be blocked from editing. Don't go in that direction, please, post on the article talk page instead. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:50, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken: thanks, not trying to edit war. I just now realized that the prior infobox was incorrect. I’ve also changed “infobox politician” to “infobox officeholder” since they are the same thing. — Politicsfan4 (talk) 15:11, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Jackson photo

Why is it such a big deal just to use an actual image? Martin Van Buren and John Quincy Adams have official images, plus everyone seemed fine with the change until you put it back the way it was, why? What’s wrong with the actual image? TomVenam2021 (talk) 08:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TomVenam2021: the portrait was fine before - other presidents use portraits in their infoboxes as well. But if you really want to change it, then go ahead. — Politicsfan4 (talk) 13:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the only other presidents with portraits in their infoboxes were the first 5, who never had a picture taken. I’ll change it. TomVenam2021 (talk) 21:59, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

US presidential boxes

You show up, revert my multiple edits & then walk away. How collaborative of you. GoodDay (talk) 01:20, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay: As I understand it, you removed the series boxes without any consensus. I simply restored them. — Politicsfan4 (talk) 13:35, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Congressional Election Infoboxes

Why does it make sense to link to an election that is not the one immediately prior to the subject of the page? Jdavi333 (talk) 13:07, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jdavi333: Because they are only special elections, and not important enough to be included. They were not regularly scheduled, and only a handful of them occur each year. It also would be extremely tedious to change this for every House and Senate election article, which span centuries. — Politicsfan4 (talk) 14:49, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even if they are not regularly scheduled, I think almost every odd numbered year has an election since 1789. I would be happy to change the articles over the next few week. Takes 2 seconds per article. If the only reason is tediousness, I will do it. Jdavi333 (talk) 15:15, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert to an older diagram on Scottish Parliament?

Hey,

I sourced a new diagram directly from the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body that is a more accurate representation of the seats in the Parliament on wikicommons. I was inspired by people adding newer diagrams to the Australian House of Representatives, Australian Senate, New Zealand House of Representatives etc.

Please open a discussion on wikicommons or give a reason why you revert a change in your edit summary next time :)

Egroeg5 (talk) 19:55, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Jones (third baseman)

On 24 September 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jones (third baseman), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a man named Jones played one baseball game for the New York Metropolitans in 1885? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jones (third baseman). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Jones (third baseman)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Jones (third baseman) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jones (third baseman) 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/Jones (third baseman) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

Just notifying you, I didn't nominate it. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 09:42, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Eton College crest.svg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Eton College crest.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis (baseball) Featured article review

I have nominated Lewis (baseball) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pine Barrens Byway marker

I looked at the source for the graphic, and there's nothing in the document that says that the markers for New Jersey's byways are in the public domain. As a default, we assume anything like that is protected by copyright and subject to fair use unless proven otherwise. Works of the federal government and a few specific states are automatically PD, but New Jersey isn't one of those states with that policy. That is, unless, there is a different source out there saying otherwise. Years ago, I received an email from MDOT saying that all of Michigan's markers were in the public domain, and that email was logged in commons:Commons:OTRS. That's how the Pure Michigan Byway, the Michigan Heritage Route and Capitol Loop markers were uploaded as PD even though they aren't specifically listed in the Michigan MUTCD, which is the document that has the general copyright release for the state's other highway markers.

So there are three ways forward:

  1. Find a source that says the byway markers are PD/freely licensed for use/re-use;
  2. Email an NJDOT official to get the byways markers released into the PD or appropriately licensed for our use/re-used and log that email with OTRS; or
  3. Use the markers under fair-use rules.

One caveat for fair-use: the marker graphics could only be used on an individual article about the specific byway. I don't think we could use them in the listicle article on the byways. We certainly couldn't use them in other articles, like the tourist route section of the Garden State Parkway article's infobox. Imzadi 1979 → 03:47, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Imzadi1979: the marker and photos for the Delaware River Scenic Byway, a similar byway in New Jersey, is licensed as PD by the FHWA. I suppose it could be the same for the Pine Barrens Marker? -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 03:57, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That specific version of the Delaware River Scenic Byway marker, yes. Note that it isn't the same marker as what NJDOT shows in their byway guide. The FHWA link wouldn't have anything to do with the Pine Barrens Byway graphic though.
The guide says "These guidelines comply with the New Jersey Roadway Design Manual and the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), which define state and national sign regulations." The New Jersey Roadway Design Manual doesn't have anything about signs and copyrights, so it's no help to us on this. Unlike Michigan, New Jersey doesn't have its own MUTCD. The federal MUTCD itself has a copyright release in its text, so the markers shown within that manual are PD. The federal MUTCD doesn't list the NJ byway markers, just as the Michigan MUTCD doesn't list the Capitol Loop marker. That's why I emailed MDOT for clarification and got a reply that states that all of Michigan's markers are PD; that reply is logged in OTRS. Imzadi 1979 → 04:18, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar for election map making

The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
Thank you for your fantastic political mapmaking skills! Your maps are highly informative and bring needed color and complexity to election articles! Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder about MOS:SEAOFBLUE

Hello, I reverted your recent contribution[1] at Barack Obama. Under MOS:SEAOFBLUE we don't typically put two links (like Honolulu, Hawaii) together in that nature. I wasn't sure if your aware of the guideline. Happy editing! Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:35, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Adobe Photoshop, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spanish.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for help

Can you clean up Tim Pawlenty? Could use a little as it seems sporadically edited over the last few years. Thank you — Teddies1 (talk) 13:46, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Veep candidate pages

Howdy. Checked over the Republican and Democratic vice presidential candidate selection pages & couldn't find the discussion that resulted in a consensus to delete the top images & infoboxes. Therefore myself & at least two other editors have restored them. GoodDay (talk) 04:12, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Politicsfan4&oldid=1106915174"