User talk:Novemberjazz

Archives (Index)

2020/April 2020/June 2020/May 2021/April 2021/August 2021/December 2021/July 2021/June 2021/May 2021/November 2021/October 2021/September 2022/February 2022/March

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Rex Maddaford

Hi. The link you've provided doesn't load - I get an access denied error message with "This request was blocked by the security rules". I've tried it from two different machines too, with the same result. Therefore, it fails WP:V. Do you have an alt. source? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:07, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Weird. It has worked for me. I will attempt to look for another source tomorrow. Thanks for letting me know. KidAd (talk) 06:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Could be a UK thing, but hopefully there's another source. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:17, 14 May 2020 (U

YMS Kimba video

Can you explain why it was reasonable to delete the information about the YMS video on the Kimba the White Lion wiki page? Yes it is all speculation, but so is everything under the Lion King controversy subtopic. It's as though you're censoring people from finding out the other side of the story, even though there was more research done by YMS than anyone else. Connorwebb2244 (talk) 16:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• Connorwebb224 First, avoid any accusations of "censorship" per WP:GOODFAITH. Opposition to the inclusion of content on a page – especially in a case as trivial as this – has nothing to do with censorship. Seeing as you've made no other edits to Wikipedia other than your comment on my talk page, I'll assume that you are unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia content is based upon Wikipedia:Reliable sources. For example, a reliable source may be a nationally-recognized newspaper (NY Times, LA Times, Seattle Times, WSJ, etc.) or a TV channel (CNN, MSNBC, BBC, etc.). User-generated content is not a reliably source, so it should not be used on Wikipedia (Per WP:YOUTUBE and WP:USERGENERATED. That isn't to say that a YouTube video can never be used on a page, but it must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. If a YouTube video was released by official channel of a reliable source, it could probably be included. The video you reference does not fit into that category, so it will not be included. KidAd (talk) 17:20, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

You clearly like editing on here. Maybe watch the video and see the claims he debunks (with proper evidence, as if he were a reliable source) so you can delete more information. Connorwebb2244 (talk) 21:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Connorwebb2244 I don’t exactly know what you mean. Could you be a little more specific? KidAd (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

The video by YMS debunks the entire conspiracy. Unlike most people who decided to speak about the Kimba/Lion King controversy, Adam (the name of the guy who runs the YMS channel) actually watched all of the Kimba media. Literally no stone left unturned, made clear just by how long his video is. Debunks a law professor (someone you'd think would make for a credible source) and makes it seem fairly obvious that the person hasn't even seen either Kimba or The Lion King. I suggest you watch the video, as it is as informative and objective as most reliable sources. See what you can do with the information presented in the video. If information about his video can't be added to the page, then there should at least be a note that the conspiracy should be taken with a large grain of salt. Connorwebb2244 (talk) 02:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Connorwebb2244 I do not plan on combing though the video meticulously for usable information. The video cannot be used on the page because it is, itself, a user-generated source – despite being composed of several sources that the video creator used. If the video creator published a list of the sources he used, then I suggest you update the page accordingly. KidAd (talk) 02:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

But you do comb through a bunch of Wikipedia pages to delete any "user-generated sources" whether or not they're reliable?

I'm done. No one's getting anywhere with this. Connorwebb2244 (talk) 03:06, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Connorwebb2244 It is wikipedia policy to not include user-generated content on pages per WP:USERGENERATED. It is not your fault for being unfamiliar with policy, but don't blame me for adhering to it. You're welcome to add content to the page based on sources used in the video you mentioned. KidAd (talk) 03:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

But then someone like you will find some reliability loophole in what I write and follow Wiki policy by deleting it completely. I could write something and make it sound good in two hours which you could delete at the click of a button. Because I'm not as familiar with policies as someone like you. People can still view it under the page history, but what are the odds of that? What are the odds of them taking the info at face value?

Not worth my time. People will find the video without Wikipedia anyway. Connorwebb2244 (talk) 03:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Connorwebb2244 I'm sorry if you're feeling frustrated. Writing for Wikipedia can an incredibly rewarding and satisfying hobby, but there is a bit of a learning curve. You can use Help:Getting started to find all the information you need. I would also suggest asking questions at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, which is populated with many editors more experienced and knowledgable than me. Don't let this discourage you. KidAd (talk) 03:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Round and Round

I'm not sure what is and what isn't important there, but it is all sourced. You would be free to regard the source as not reliable.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• Vchimpanzee What is this about? KidAd (talk) 01:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Right. I should have been specific and forgot. Here is what you did.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't see the problem here. The edit was minor, and the source wasn't removed. KidAd (talk) 01:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

It's obviously not minor, since I am disputing it. Minor means no one is likely to dispute it. I see those details as important, although another article has them.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Noted. It doesn’t seem all that controversial however. I’m not against the inclusion of the content, but the clunky wording. I can take another look at the lanaguage when I get back to my computer. KidAd (talk) 01:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay, whoever added it didn't do that good a job, I'll admit.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:51, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. This edit added the content: here. A simple reword and the removal of "---" should suffice. I prefer the simple "In 2020, the band was featured in a Geico commercial performing the song." I don't find it necessary to explain the joke of the commercial on the page. KidAd (talk) 01:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

It is explained on another page, so I guess that will do. But as well written as the description was for comic purposes, I suppose this is Wikipedia and needs to be more serious.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks for your cordiality and cool-headedness. 23:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi KidAd! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Renaming an article with italics, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to . The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Melissa Benoist

Hi, when you removed a named ref from the infobox in Melissa Benoist, it broke the ref where it was called elsewhere in the article. It's a good idea after you make an edit to check the ref section to make sure you didn't break something. I added the ref back into the article to fix the problem. Schazjmd (talk) 21:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Schazjmd Sorry about that. Thanks for the fix. KidAd (talk) 01:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Anthony Labruna

The article Anthony Labruna has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not BLP level notable, has not attracted substantial 3rd party notice since the announcement of his appointment, and appears unlikely to become more notable in the near future. If this changes, of course, we can recreate the page.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 23:14, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Infobox edits

Please don’t screw around with the infobox as you did at John McEntee. Leave it in the order that the template places it. Corky 01:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Corkythehornetfan What I did was not "screwing" of any kind. The fact is that John McEntee served as "Personal Aide to the President" from January 20, 2017 to March 13, 2018. He then returned to the White House to serve as "Director of the White House Presidential Personnel Office," not in his old role. The infobox should obviously reflect that. (Sources: politico, axios, the hill, nymag, etc.) KidAd (talk) 01:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I’m not talking about that, the order of the parameters were all mixed around. The way I’ve positioned them now is how they should be per the template. Please don’t mess with the order of parameters. Corky 02:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Why didn't you just say that? How am I supposed to know what you mean by "screw around"? KidAd (talk) 01:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Your signature

Your talk page signature doesn’t seem to have a link to your userpage, which is pretty much universal among Wikipedians. I believe it would be helpful if you added one. Dronebogus (talk) 01:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Dronebogus Yikes! I just switched the color of my username a few days back. I guess I messed something up. Thanks for the alert. KidAd (talk) 01:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

You’re welcome! Dronebogus (talk) 08:41, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

You do realise, don't you, that the custom signature you recently created does not have links back to your user or talk page. It causes problems if you don't have at least one of these. It makes it more difficult for users to talk to you and some bots, such as some archiving bots, will fail to recognise it as a signature leading to the section not being archived. Also, when you try to ping someone it won't work, again because your sig has not been recognised by the parser. SpinningSpark 10:50, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh doh, didn't see someone else already noticed this. Apologies. SpinningSpark 10:51, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I feel so loved. Thanks SS and DroneBogus. 😍 KidAd (talk) 16:53, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Remember...

Plip!

...to notify article creators when you start an AfD! /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 16:50, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Tpdwkouaa Sorry about that! KidAd (talk) 08:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Anthony Labruna for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Anthony Labruna 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/Anthony Labruna 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. MelanieN (talk) 15:13, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Just to explain what happened here: User:BrxBrx attempted to create an AfD, but it was malformed and did not get properly listed in the discussions. I recreated it as a courtesy. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:19, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. KidAd (talk) 17:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Reminder

Please tag your new articles with appropriate WikiProject banners on their talk pages, e.g. {{WikiProject Biography}} and {{WikiProject United States}}. Also, Ballotpedia is not a reliable source and should not be used in a WP:BLP. SounderBruce 02:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

SounderBruce, Is this in reference to anything specific? Also, there is currently no consensus on the reliability of Ballotpedia per WP:RSP. It can be helpful for sourcing succession information related to officeholders. I don't see any reason not to use it until a consensus is established. KidAd (talk) 03:01, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

KidAd, it's a last-resort resource. For an article like Bill Jenkin, it would be simple to find a local newspaper or the legislature's rolls to source the date of his swearing-in. SounderBruce 03:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

SounderBruce, I will keep that in mind. Thanks for the reminder. 👍 KidAd (talk) 03:06, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Carlos Maza citation error

In your recent edit to Carlos Maza, you inadvertently used the wrong citation for a quote - a book about Nazi propaganda radio published in 1997 can't possibly have a quote from Maza about YouTube. I've removed the erroneous citation; you might want to find the correct one. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof Thank you so much for the alert. I must have made an error using the automatic citation tool. Instead of pasting in the Business Insider URL, I most likely pasted in a series of words from the cited quote ("something...something...leftist propaganda"). Again, thank you for catching my mistake. KidAd (talk) 02:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Teresa Leger Fernandez forum

Extended content

Hi KidAd, thanks for reaching out. Wanted to discuss a few things on the Teresa Leger Fernandez page. It seems like two specific claims in the US House race section are written with the intention to mislead and the allegations are being treated as fact without context. In regards to the attack ads on Plame the article is written in a way that paints Leger Fernandez as complicit when the same source clearly lays out a response to the allegation that I believe would be beneficial for broader and fuller context. Second, regarding the allegations of "dark money" again that source points out a response for the Leger Fernandez team. Again, this context is key as the way the current article is written is misleading and essentially accuses Leger Fernandez of FEC law violation, which they responded to. I feel like if these statements are being made, it is critical that broader context should be given. Happy to discuss more! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collg76 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC) Collg76 Hello, and thank you for your message. First, I have removed the content added in this edit. Wikipedia is built on reliable sources, and should remain neutral per WP:NPOV. Wikipedia pages are not campaign advertisements or campaign websites. If the Leger Fernandez campaign wants to refute what reliable sources say, they can issue a press release. I am also curious to know if you are affiliated with the Leger Fernandez campaign or a company working for her campaign. If so, you will need to declare it per WP:COI. KidAd (talk) 22:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC) Thanks for the info, KidAd Not affiliated, just a concerned voter who thought full context might be helpful and would help for neutrality since again, a full picture would be more helpful. Good to know the full rules. I still believe that a response or at least a recognition of campaign finance laws would be beneficial since the wording now implies that these allegations are true. Thanks for the discussion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collg76 (talk • contribs) 00:05, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Extended content

Dear KidAd, Before you revert my edit to the Teresa Leger Fernandez article again, please take a closer look at it, including the extensive citations. I will be happy to engage with you further about it, if you wish. The intent, as stated, is to clarify the dark money issue and to characterize accurately what took place. Anticipating that you will legitimately also want to know whether I am promoting a political campaign, the answer is no, and I am not a party activist. I am well-informed because I live in Santa Fe, NM, have followed the campaign closely, and have long experience with disinformation as a former Foreign Service Officer and professor of international relations. I also know both Teresa Leger Fernandez and Valerie Plame. However, the issue of interference in the campaign is what matters. The primary contribution I have made it to expand the range of facts and reliability of sources -- which include an article written by Washington Post head fact checker Glenn Klessler TRGreen (talk) 18:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC) TRGreen, Is it safe to assume that you also edited as Collg76? If so, please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policy on using multiple accounts. Speaking of policy, both this edit and this edit violate WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:SYNTH. You may have extensive local knowledge that I do not, but Wikipedia is based upon reliable sources and should be written neutrally. It is not your place to insert supposition or editorialization such as, The competitive primary among liberal candidates was largely civil. However, a late influx of "dark money" contributed by groups that use existing campaign finance law to remain anonymous, marred the campaign or such external interference was unusual for New Mexico politics, and it was unclear whether it had any effect on the outcome, given Leger Fernandez’s front runner status, extensive endorsements, and advertising openly sponsored on her behalf. If I take your claim that you know both Teresa Leger Fernandez and Valerie Plame at face value, it is important to familiarize yourself with conflict of interest guidelines. Even if you are not a paid staffer or consultant, you still may be violating COI without knowing it. Your personal relationship with the page's subject could prevent you from editing subjectively. KidAd (talk) 18:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC) @KidAd:, No, I am not Collg76, although we are making the same point about facts and context. Since you have more experience editing Wikipedia, I am happy to defer to you on protocols and to work with you on good faith consensus. Correspondingly, please note, I am applying the same professional standards to this contribution that I would to any other writing for publication that carries my name. The reason I asked you to look at the multiple new citations was to reassure you that the additional information is thoroughly supported, fact-based, and independently reported, not supposition or editorializing. What caught my attention when I noticed there was a Wikipedia page on Teresa Leger Fernandez was the biased and incomplete information contained in this passage: "During the primary, Leger Fernandez was criticized for attack ads against Plame, including one that featured swastikas superimposed over Plame's eyes, a reference to Plame's past comments that were perceived as anti-Semitic.[12] Leger Fernandez later denied any involvement with the ads.[13] Leger Fernandez was later criticized for her campaign's use of funds donated by Practical Inc. and Avacy Initiatives Inc., so-called "dark money" groups that do not disclose their donors.[14]" It was to correct this record with material improvements, again based on a wider range of sources, that I offered the edit. The core of the problem is that there is more to the issue of dark money and the characterizations of both Plame and Leger Fernandez; additional detail and context helps to get this right. To be as concise as possible: 1) A split emerged between the newsroom and the opinion editor at Santa Fe New Mexican and the Taos News, which have the same owner, after the papers endorsed Leger Fernandez. The news editor disagreed and the assigned reporter favored Plame, leading to reporting that highlighted dark money allegations by other candidates and cast Leger Fernandez in a poor light. It did not seem useful to go into this level of local detail in Wikipedia, but it does bear on the need to rely on additional sources. 2) The statement that Leger Fernandez "was criticized for attack ads" appears neutral, but those criticisms originated with competing candidates who implied she was associated with them when in fact she denounced them. 3) The negative campaign that tagged Plame as anti-Semitic was based, not on comments she made, but on a single three year-old tweet and a clumsy initial reaction, for which she apologized. Again, competing candidates alleged that Leger Fernandez's campaign used dark money funds, and the newspaper repeated the criticism. The fact that she has spoken out against dark money and has the endorsement of End Citizens United are meaningful. Finally, regarding COI, like you, I take it seriously. The benefit of knowing both Leger Fernandez and Plame is that I can vouch for their integrity and authentic dedication to public service. This translates into a desire to see both of them treated fairly and the circumstances recorded correctly in Wikipedia. Nothing more. As I said, without knowing anything about your own interest, to the extent that a COI concern remains, all the more reason for you to take a good faith look at what I have offered, especially the additional citations.TRGreen (talk) 23:54, 5 July 2020 (UTC) I hope you don't mind, but I've made some minor formatting fixes to your text improve readability. The only reason I asked if you were another user (Collg76) is that you chose to write your first message to me as a part of an older conversation, and answered a question I had posed to another user. While I can appreciate that you are applying the same professional standards to this contribution that [you] would to any other publication, I must remind you that Wikipedia may not be like other publications you have written for. See WP:NOT for more information on this. I have not followed any journalistic disputes occurring between local publications, and I don't view it as relevant. I can't think of any other way to explain – concisely – that it is not your job to "correct the record." Wikipedia must be reliably-sourced and neutral. A format such as: "Person A was accused of [something] by Person B. Person A denies involvement" is about as neutral as they come. This edit completely removes reliably sourced information if favor of "all sides are great!" content, all while adding WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:SYNTH. As a person with four edit to your name, I don't expect you to be a perfect Wikipedia contributor. Still, it would be helpful to you to become acquainted with basic Wikipedia policy before making significant edits to politics-related articles. KidAd (talk) 00:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC) KidAd, No problem fixing the format, and thank you for taking the time to share your knowledge of Wikipedia policies and practices. I have used and donated to Wikipedia for many years, have shared information with others who were writing articles, and guide students who use Wikipedia for entry level research. Comparable professional standards include, for example, the publication ethics of Oxford University Press. You are right, Wikipedia is not like any other publication; its exacting and technical rules, combined with its unique information age vulnerabilities, are not as intuitive as they might seem to someone who has been immersed in them for a long time. I share your concern and caution when it comes to the sensitivity of political issues. Even though the NM 3D campaign may be a small teapot, the intentional and unintentional effects of dark money and disinformation spread indiscriminately across local, national, and international dimensions. All the more reason for careful stewardship of individual reputations as well as information integrity. Assuming we also share the goals of posting a high-quality, neutral, and reliably sourced article, I hope we will be able to agree on changes to what you have written based on my contribution. The crucial fixes concern attribution language, the addition of sources, and inclusion of facts essential to context. To get to specifics, let me refer to your note: A format such as: "Person A was accused of [something] by Person B. Person A denies involvement" is about as neutral as they come. There are three passages that do not follow this format. By using the passive voice, what you wrote leaves attribution imprecise and implies allegations that are neither neutral nor established in fact. 1) “…Leger Fernandez was criticized for attack ads against Plame….” This passage implies that Leger Fernandez was behind the attack ads without attributing the source of the criticism. The fact that political opponents leveled this criticism is material to the allegation, as is information about the Alliance to Combat Extremism as the source of the ads. Leger Fernandez’s denunciation was substantially stronger than a simple denial. 2) “…a reference to Plame's past comments that were perceived as anti-Semitic….” This incorrectly implies that Plame may have made anti-Semitic comments and does not attribute a source. Plame did not make comments, but rather retweeted an article titled “Jews Are Driving America’s Wars,” which incensed the Jewish community and created of a scandal. However, that she made an error and repeatedly apologized is material. 3) “Leger Fernandez was later criticized for her campaign's use of funds donated by… so-called "dark money" groups….” This implies a connection between Leger Fernandez’s campaign and dark money groups without attributing political opponents as the source. If this were true, it would be an FEC violation and therefore have serious legal as well as reputational implications. The fact that End Citizens United endorsed her is material because it contradicts the allegation. Additional notes: Sources: Because your article relies on citations from the Santa Fe New Mexican and Taos News, the issue of bias is directly relevant to its reliability as a source. Other reporting, for example, in the Albuquerque Journal does not have this problem. The attack ads against Plame were the subject of a Washington Post fact-checking piece, among other reporting. The Jewish Insider first identified the sponsors of ads that supported Leger Fernandez as Democratic Party operatives; other newspapers followed suit. Dark Money and disinformation are the subjects of well-documented Wikipedia articles. These and other sources add neutral and reliable substantive information. Context: That the competitive primary among liberal candidates was largely civil is factual, verifiable, and readily sourced. Other characterizations that were widely reported and not disputed include: that a late influx of dark money marred the campaign, that the authenticity of the Alliance to Combat Extremism is questionable, that there is a non-trivial distinction between anonymously funded negative and positive campaign ads, that external interference is unusual for New Mexico politics, and that it is unclear whether dark money had any effect on the outcome. While subject to judgment, these convey important understanding of context. How would you like to proceed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TRGreen (talk • contribs) 18:15, 7 July 2020 (UTC) Take this to the article’s talk page to gain consensus for your changes among other editors. KidAd (talk) 18:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Sure, if you could explain or direct me to guidance on how to move this discussion to the article's talk page and seek consensus. TRGreen (talk) 02:45, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Read WP:CONS and WP:TALKDONTREVERT. KidAd (talk) 02:47, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Angela Stanton-King, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

A belated welcome!

The welcome may be belated, but the cookies are still warm!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, KidAd! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

• Introductory tutorial
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Writing an article
• Five pillars of Wikipedia
• Community portal
• Task Center
• Help pages
• The Teahouse (newcomer help)
• Main help desk

If you don't already know, you should sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to insert your username and the date.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 20:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I know that you've been here awhile, but I just couldn't find any welcomes! (Even in your archives!) Cheers, ◊PRAHLADbalaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 20:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Prahlad balaji, Thank you, and just in time for my 2.5 year anniversary! Better late than never. 😊 KidAd (🗣️🗣🗣) 20:22, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 19

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

David Murray (painter) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to GBR

Steve Conway (politician) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Washington State

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Michael Brooks (political commentator)

Hi there. Given that there is now significant independent coverage of the subject (Fox News, Jacobin Magazine, Heavy.com to name a few), I kindly ask you to reconsider and remove the deletion discussion you have started. His death may or may not make him notable, but the coverage of his death so far clearly shows this is a notable person. The main concern in the 2018 AfD was a lack of independent coverage, but this is clearly no longer an issue. Thanks. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:43, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. Unfortunately, the page is (and was previously) not supported by enough WP:RS coverage to warrant its existence. His untimely death is certainly tragic, but coverage of his death is not enough to merit a page per WP:SINGLEEVENT. Additionally, I don't think Heavy.com is a reliable source (see: perennial sources. Again, I thank you for leaving a message and assuming good faith, but I do not believe the subject meets notability and will not be retracting the AfD. KidAd (💬💬) 03:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining further. I can inform that Brooks is not known for a single event, as can be seen from these articles. It is indeed a single event that has caused these articles to be published, but the articles clearly describe him as being notable for other things. I have no comment on the reliability of Heavy.com. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:54, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm happy to discuss further in the AfD. KidAd (💬💬) 03:54, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I assume by the time you read this message you would see the progress on the AfD. If you have not yet, I am sure you will do so. While you have a right to nominate articles for deletion, it would reflect positively on you if you withdrew the nomination before the discussion is closed. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:32, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at has been accepted

2020 Georgia's 5th congressional district special election, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Bkissin (talk) 14:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Lauren Boebert

On 22 July 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lauren Boebert, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Lauren Boebert encourages her servers to openly carry firearms inside her restaurant in Rifle, Colorado? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lauren Boebert. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Lauren Boebert), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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) 00:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Sara Gideon

Bates' action is indeed on Bates page, but the House leader's decision to remove or not remove him, and when, is about the House leader (Gideon), not Bates. 2601:681:4A00:4FE0:983E:F4B:EB86:72FB (talk) 04:49, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Inclusion on Gideon's page is WP:UNDUE, but feel free to gain consensus on the article's talk page. KidAd (💬💬) 05:09, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

• Kidad: we have been gaining consensus there. It is sourced from multiple sources; it is a vote about her leadership 52-71 in the House. That was about Gideon, not Bates per se. First vandalism warning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:681:4A00:4FE0:4438:C80D:13F3:B012 (talk) 02:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

There is no discussion anywhere on the removal of this content. Feel free to start one on the article's talk page, and do not accuse other users of vandalism without cause. KidAd (💬💬) 02:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

There is extensive discussion in the talk. Please do your homework before you delete. Also, you gave 0 reasons for the deletion. It is about a 52-71 vote about Gideon's handling of Bates' alleged sex offense as a House member. Eliminating large swaths of text, without a reason, after extensive discussion, without looking at any of the 'talk' about it, sounds like vandalism to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:681:4A00:4FE0:4438:C80D:13F3:B012 (talk) 02:27, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Please provide a link to the consensus that supports your changes. You did not make a single edit before this and have never participated in a talk page discussion. KidAd (💬💬) 02:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC) I have made numerous edits to the page.

Interesting experience on the Sara Gideon and US Maine 2020 pages. I study fairly extensively a vote in the Maine House towards Speaker Gideon, concerning a potential sex offender representative in the house, Dillon Bates. A vote is done, 52-71. I report this as accurately as I possibly can, with 4-5 different, neutral citations. I get erased, often without explanation and threatened with being blocked. I seek an arbitration after I am repeatedly erased. Users: Neutrality, KidAd act as each other's arbitrator. Having looked at their own pages, I see they are also in other brouhahas over deleting information that paints a democratic candidate in a bad light, or inserting partisan talk. When I contribute, every time (within minutes: I hope they are adequately compensated!) one of them has said nothing (half the time), or the other half, said: 'no references!', 'irrelevant', 'bizarre language', 'BPL', and the like, I have answered their concerns, trying to seek consensus, and warning against potential vandalism. What is disconcerting about this experience is that it is power speaking to truth: if you have extensive time to edit wikipedia pages, you are heavily partisan invested, and you attain a higher status, your privilege is to edit, not provide adequate justification, and lock pages. Arbitrary, biased power is unfortunate. Apparently, if two hyper-partisan wiki editors don't like the information, that is enough to 'prevent consensus'. Not that we could find a common resolution, neutral language, or shortening of its mention. No, rejection, usually without explanation. I will keep trying to have my case heard: that a potential mishandling of a sex offense case in the Maine House by the Speaker is wiki worthy. I hope I can find a fair arbiter, besides a few who take turns acting as eraser one minute, then my arbiter the next, even in an election year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:681:4A00:4FE0:4438:C80D:13F3:B012 (talk • contribs)

I already read this rant on Neutrality's page. Your violation of multiple wikipedia policies will likely get you blocked. KidAd (Talk) 03:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited David Murray (painter), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page GBR.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Lisa Goodman (politician) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lisa Goodman (politician) 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/Lisa Goodman (politician) 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. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 04:24, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Frank A. Howard

On 29 July 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Frank A. Howard, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 00:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Hatnote

I removed the hatnote you added to Frank A. Howard. Per the guideline WP:NAMB, hatnotes are generally not needed unless the title is ambiguous with other pages. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 01:14, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Gotcha. I wasn't aware of that policy. KidAd (💬💬) 01:20, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Lisa Goodman AfD

I wanted to call your attention to the fact that the AfD for Lisa Goodman might be motivated by her recent votes. I don't think it's a coincidence that one of the council members who voted against reallocating police funds and against firing the MPD public information officer is now facing a deletion. I believe that the potential for sock-puppeting, trolling, and canvassing are higher on this AfD. Do you have experience dealing with this?--Mpen320 (talk) 04:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't make any assumptions about political motivations for the AfD. As far as I know, the discussion has not experienced any SPA activity. But I do still believe the nomination is frivolous and flawed. KidAd (💬💬) 04:59, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Julius Berman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Yeshiva College.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:44, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Cori Bush

I'll move the draft into the mainspace, once I work on it for a minute. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I will work on it more tomorrow as well. KidAd (talk) 05:01, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

Just wanted to thank you for creating the article about Dave A. Chokshi! — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 11:34, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Theresa Greenfield (August 7)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Theresa Greenfield and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Theresa Greenfield, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 05:02, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, KidAd! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Robert McClenon (talk) 05:02, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Huh?

[1]. Doug Weller talk 13:32, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller, I saw that an IP made that change and I went to revert it. I was editing on mobile and there must have been an edit conflict. KidAd (talk) 17:54, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Fine, I thought it must be a mistake. Doug Weller talk 12:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Your Thad Allen edit

If you are going to change the date convention used in the Thad Allen article then I would suggest that you change the markup at the beginning of the article from dmy to mdy and change ALL the dates in the article. This is a military article as well as a biography so either format is acceptable but mixing formats within an article isn't. I have reverted your edit so that you may decide which way you want to go with this. Regards. Cuprum17 (talk) 15:10, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

"Dan Ryan (politician)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Dan Ryan (politician). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 9#Dan Ryan (politician) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Madison Cawthorn

Can you please elaborate on your objection under WP:BLP on the Talk page for Madison Cawthorn? I've created a discussion header there for this purpose. Juansmith (talk) 18:24, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

IP Message

Hi, My name is Tera Freese. I am writing you to ask that you stop "correcting" my husbands Stan Freese page. I understand that you may not be able to verify some of the information, but I assure you, we can. Please understand I am grateful for this site and the enormous amount of work which goes into the everyones bio. I do not wist to sound ungrateful, I an just trying to have all of his information listed. Thank you. Tera Freee — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:bd0:9cb0:5092:d834:f009:a419 (talk • contribs)

Unfortunately, I have no way to verify your identity or claims. KidAd (talk) 21:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

About Charles H. Taylor's district

Hello, fellow WikiProject US State Legislatures participant! I've noticed your edits on pages related to the subject in the past, and I think you're a very valuable member of this small team we have in the project. This last edit however, I have a question about. On Charles H. Taylor's page, you made some copy edits, but in doing so, you removed the district information from the infobox about his district information. I wanted to ask if this was intentional, and if so why. Adding district information into the infobox seems to be fairly common practice with state legislators.RoundSquare (talk) 16:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

RoundSquare, Thanks for the message. In my first edit, I removed the second office altogether. This was an accident. In restoring the second office, I did not include the district because it was listed as the "Kent and Ottawa County district." As far as I know, Michigan House and Senate districts are numbered, not named after counties as they are in Massachusetts. I assume that there is a numbered district that corresponds with these two counties, but I have not yet found it. KidAd (talk) 16:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

You're right that Michigan districts currently are numbered, but that's only been a thing since 1965. Before then, it was based on counties in the state house. The state senate has always been numbered. So, at Taylor's time, it was county based districts. An easy mistake to make! I think this has been resolved, and I will put Taylor's district info back.RoundSquare (talk) 16:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

RoundSquare Great! Thanks for the clarification. KidAd (talk) 17:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

EW

Hi KidAd. Thank you for your work on several American politics article. Please be careful not to edit war, even if you believe your edits are correct. - MrX 🖋 18:10, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

MrX, Gotcha. I hear you loud and clear. KidAd (talk) 18:10, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

- MrX 🖋 18:39, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jessica Castleberry has been accepted

Jessica Castleberry, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Pi (Talk to me!) 11:12, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Great job on Dan Ryan - keep it up! Meatsgains(talk) 01:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Melanie A. Stansbury

Extended content

Dear Kidad, The follow up on MrX's request, I would ask you to please stop undoing the edits that we (Desert_Diva and I) are trying to make on Melanie A. Stansbury's page. There are several updates that we need to make on the page and you take down our edits before we can really get started. The edits that I made today made a correction and rearranged the citations to better justify statements. My edits were minor and made some corrections that needed to be made and you took them down with a cryptic "not helpful" comment. Stansbury was elected to the NM State House of Representatives two years ago. Her page needs to be updated with information about the legislative work she has done since. Please let us finish making the updates, then you can edit what we have done if you have improvements to make. Thank you, BiostatSci — Preceding unsigned comment added by BiostatSci (talk • contribs) 22:57, 19 August 2020 (UTC) BiostatSci, While I appreciate your message, I will reiterate what I told "Desert Diva" on her talk page. In writing There are several updates that we need to make on the page, you seem to imply that you are being paid for your edits. Per WP:COI, if you are affiliated with Stansbury in any way – professional or personal – you must declare it and avoid the page. I will leave a generic COI template on your talk page for more information. KidAd talk 23:02, 19 August 2020 (UTC) Kidad, I am not being paid to edit this page. I do know Ms. Stansbury, as she is a local politician. I support her for re-election, but does that disqualify me from making properly sourced updates to her page? I am very experienced at properly justifying statements in my papers. I will do the same here. I will make any disclosure necessary before continuing to edit. Once that is done, I would ask again that you not take down our edits until we are finished with them. You can then assess whether the page has been biased in any way. If you believe it has we can talk further then. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BiostatSci (talk • contribs) BiostatSci, "Desert Diva" claimed here that she was a volunteer for a County Democratic Party org. Do you work for the same organization? KidAd talk 23:41, 19 August 2020 (UTC) Additionally, there are several problems with your edit here. First, you unnecessarily capitalized academic disciplines. This is not standard practice, unless the discipline is a proper noun (English, Spanish, etc.). Additional information you added was sourced to "VoteSmart." In my experience, the website can provide helpful biographical information, but is not always the most reliable source. In most cases, it is preferable to find another WP:RS, like a newspaper article. Also, why did you remove that Stansbury was succeeded by Jimmie Hall? This information is sourced. KidAd talk 23:49, 19 August 2020 (UTC) Dear Kidad, I checked about whether the academic degree of a person should be capitalized. This is what I found: "Academic degrees are capitalized only when the full name of the degree is used, such as Bachelor of Arts or Master of Social Work. General references, such as bachelor’s, master’s or doctoral degree, are not capitalized." at https://wmich.edu/writing/rules/capitalization. I also have seen this rule followed in other Wikipedia articles (See, for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bachelor_of_Social_Services). Apparently, there are differing opinions on this. Whatever the Wikipedia style is fine with me. I view Vote Smart as similar to Ballotpedia, which is commonly referenced in articles about politicians. I used it because it was accurate and has more complete information about Stansbury's education. I can piece together multiple references to document the same information, if necessary. In articles about people, biographical information almost always comes from the subject of the article, either directly or indirectly. So, I chose the reference that had almost all of it in one place. There were no discrepancies among the sources. Some were just incomplete. Also, concerning the addition of a second reference to document the "born in Farmington and raised in Albuquerque" was made to completely document the statement. The previous reference only documented the "born in Farmington" part. I took the statement about Stansbury succeeding Jimmie Hall because it is going to be redundant with information in a subsequent section to be added (i.e., Elections). The edit that came just before the Jimmie Hall sentence was made because we are not sure whether she still works for the Utton Center, which was the case when the interview occurred but may not now. So, I reworded the sentence to allow for the possibility that she does not still work there. Finally, and most importantly, I added the section New Mexico House of Representatives because things are not static. She has a record in the House and it should be documented in this article. We will do that by adding sub-sections under this new section as follows: Elections 2018 2020 Tenure We will document some of the more important bills that she wrote in the legislature. Committee Assignments Respectfully, BiostatSci — Preceding unsigned comment added by BiostatSci (talk • contribs) 03:15, 20 August 2020 (UTC) You have not addressed your possible WP:COI. KidAd talk 03:18, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Just reviewed John J. O'Connell (politician), nice job. Cheers Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 08:12, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Montoe District (Santa Rosa)

I reverted the article for the time being.

I don't know if you are in the area, but this is a current discussion item in the Santa Rosa Community. One school board member proposed an emergency action to remove the School's name in the belief it was tied to President James Monroe. This article is the key reference for the community about the true history of the District and the School. Constructive, limited improvement suggestions are welcome. Please see the talk page on the article. A total elimination of much of the District history and the total elimination of the Elementary School makes Wikipedia much less useful for well-documented history.

We look forward to seeing your suggestions on the article's talk page. Thanks.MikeVdP (talk) 19:51, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

MikeVdP, I have responded to your comment on the article's talk page. I will also say that the page likely does not meet WP:GNG. Per WP:GEOLAND, Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG. Examples may include subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc. – any of which could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis, given non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. Seeing as Monroe District (Santa Rosa, California) is supported by trivial mentions in local publications, the page should probably be redirected to Santa Rosa, California or deleted. KidAd talk 21:53, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Mia Gregerson

Can you explain why you deleted major sections of the Mia Gregerson page while claiming "copyedits and infobox cleanup" as the reason? Your major deletions of documented and sourced details appear to be politically motivated during a campaign season. Please explain your actions. Thanks.