User talk:Therequiembellishere

List of Republicans opposing Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016

Please don’t throw together a whole bunch of unrelated changes into one edit session. It makes it very hard to tell what you actually did. Do them either to individual items or for one particular purpose. Thanks! — Andy Anderson 20:37, 8 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyAnderson (talk • contribs)

Duplicate

Please do not add a duplicate section to documents, such as the elected officials. Theoallen1 (talk) 04:10, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

List of Republicans Opposing Trump Notability Standard

Hi, please express your opinion on this subject on its talk page. Thanks! — Andy Anderson 05:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding editing without consensus going on, section blanking. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "List of Republicans opposing Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016".The discussion is about the topic List of Republicans opposing Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Zlassiter (talk) 05:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Indentation

For your consideration, Wikipedia_talk:Tutorial#Indenting — Andy Anderson 07:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Infobox changes

I've explained my rationale, but you continue to revert with no explanation, and I see you've changed lots of other infoboxes as well in unclear ways, which seems alarming. Why do you insist on removing UC Berkeley School of Law from G. William Miller? I can't even argue against your "position" if you refuse to explain what it is. If you think that the "base" university should always be used, this is clearly crazy, as Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania is clearly separate from the University of Pennsylvania for one recent relevant example. SnowFire (talk) 16:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

"Ridiculous re-ordering"

Please stop re-ordering infobox parameters – unless you have a very good reason to do it and you want to give people who review diffs a hard time. Based on my hypothesis Visual Editor re-arranges parameters into the order they appear in TemplateData every time someone uses it to edit an infobox – or any template parameters, I presume. Take a look at this diff and you should see that it's very hard to review your changes (even with the help of improved diff gadget). Correct me if I'm wrong, but there are no rules that say what kind of order parameters should be in, but if you are re-order them just because you don't like the order Visual Editor uses, that is just disruptive because many people need to waste time over something that is meaningless.

I would also like to concur with the observations made by SnowFire above: you need to give a good reason for revert if you undo constructive edits. For example you made a partial revert my edit (adding {{nbsp}} into infobox) without any explanation. Politrukki (talk) 17:42, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Politrukki I agree. I've also looked back at the revision and there were no problems in the first place Politrukki . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.157.176.118 (talk) 19:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:Politrukki § Re-ordering

 – Please reply here as I have your talk page watchlisted Politrukki (talk) 19:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Because you keep re-ordering the infoboxes ridiculously. I'm not sure what it is, because several editors have done it, but flipping the order of offices and particularly bringing all the term dates to the bottom of the box is ridiculous. I imagine it's because of something like the visual editor, but I honestly don't know why this keeps happening. Therequiembellishere (talk) 21:10, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's because of Visual Editor, it happens automatically and there's nothing an individual can do about it. If an editor changes even one character in an infobox, Visual Editor re-orders all parameters. However, if only the body is edited, nothing peculiar happens. I figured this out by using inductive reasoning, so I can't tell you the reason Visual Editor was programmed like this. I understand that this might seem ridiculous to you, but ask yourself "What's the benefit of fighting against re-ordering?" If you don't like how Visual Editor behaves, you should report this to its developers.

I ask that you'll just let things evolve naturally. If you let parameters be re-ordered, nothing weird will happen until someone adds parameters, in which case they'll be re-ordered once again when someone edits an infobox with Visual Editor.

You still didn't give an explanation (other than the re-ordering explanation) for why you made this revert. I ask that you reinsert that {{nbsp}} – which in my opinion belongs between initials per MOS:INITIALS, and is already in the name in body – or you give me permission to do it. You see, Tim Kaine article is under discretionary sanctions and one of the active remedies says that consensus is required before a reverted edit can be reinstated. If you don't response to this request, I need to open a discussion on article talk page asking a non-breaking space be reinstated. If nobody weighs in, I'd need to start an RFC. Now that would be ridiculous. Politrukki (talk) 19:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:Politrukki § Re-ordering

Honestly, that's such a small thing that I hadn't noticed it. Nothing else looked changed at all and the main thing I saw was a totally out-of-whack edit order. I don't really think it needs to be there because his name doesn't seem like it's at risk of line breaking anyway, nor do I see particular harm if someone's visual settings are set in a way that it does. But it's whatever.

I have no idea what you mean by "I ask that you'll just let things evolve naturally."Therequiembellishere (talk) 21:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

It's good to finally know it's the visual editor that's doing this though. Thanks for confirming that. Therequiembellishere (talk) 21:10, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

"let things evolve naturally" = don't re-order parameters to your preferred order, but also one shouldn't preemptively arrange parameters to TemplateData order (i.e. Visual Editor order) if they're not doing an actual content change. Some well-intentioned fool might use automated tools to re-order all parameters in all articles, which would be pointless.
The point of having non-breaking space initials in this case is not the risk of line breaking, but having some kind of space there because it's a style issue. Most style manuals recommend using non-breaking space on-screen and thin space on hard copy.[1] Note that this source says "[s]ome manuals also recommend closing up initials that follow a first name (Thomas A.J. Castle)", but our manual of style has no such recommendation, and it simply tells us to use   or {{nbsp}} between initials unless the subject prefers different style. I will reinsert {{nbsp}} using Visual Editor since VE has been used on Tim Kaine before.
P.S. Please don't reply on my talk page; if I initiate a conversation on someone's talk page, I will have their user talk page watchlisted for at least a month. If it's something urgent, just ping me. Politrukki (talk) 09:43, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not going to let those stupid re-orders just go on. It's not a "natural order" at all, it's the visual editor breaking in some way. Sections should stay together, not be stupidly separated into disparate parts of the infobox for editors to hunt around to adjust and multiple editors have thanked me for righting the re-orders. I still don't think the initial spacing is nearly as big a deal as you're making it, and holding up the MOS as law rather than a general editing guideline, especially on such a minor issue. But I'll stick it back in myself to prevent the box from going back to that state. Therequiembellishere (talk) 11:27, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I can't prevent anyone else from using Visual Editor. Reviewing a simple diff: 2–5 seconds. Reviewing a diff after parameters have been re-ordered: 5–30 seconds. If parameters are re-ordered back and forth, you can multiply that by two. Even you said that you couldn't read what I had changed in my first edit. If you have no policy-based argument, then I must thank for disruption.
You are right that "initial spacing" is not a big deal – it's just a matter of "why not change it better?" (and let me say that outside en.wiki I would absolutely use spacing unless explicitly told otherwise), and I was using this as an example to highlight that especially when an article is under DS, it is important to provide a helpful edit summary for revert. Without such, another user is unable to make a counterchallenge or learn what they did wrong. Politrukki (talk) 12:10, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I keep on looking back Therequiembellishere THERE IS NO PROBLEM. Stop Unlinking Locations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.12.55 (talk) 16:12, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

So, on Melvin Laird, how is putting the office in which he was most notable for holding at the top of the infobox a "ridiculous re-ordering"? If you're going by the most recent office held, should we then put William Howard Taft's service as Chief Justice above his service as President? Connormah (talk) 05:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

November 2016

Hello, I'm Kendall-K1. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on James R. Clapper, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:09, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Russ Feingold. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 17 November

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Betsy DeVos page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Obama & Biden

Howdy. There's no need to link to the articles President of the United States & Vice President of the United States more the once each, in the succession boxes of the office holders. GoodDay (talk) 06:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Ted Cruz

Please note that Ted Cruz is under discretionary sanctions and you may not make more than one revert per 24 hours and you actually made two reverts ([2], [3]) in 24-hour period. I'm not going to report you for edit warring over this, but please be more careful. Proper course of action would have been (a) alerting the user of discretionary sanctions and asking them to self-revert, or (b) wait until someone else reverts to status quo, which I could have done in this case if you hadn't made your second revert. Politrukki (talk) 09:01, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33 Politrukki (talk) 09:02, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Therequiembellishere. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Nikki Haley

Her pending nomination is under discussion on the talk page. Please participate in the discussion Niteshift36 (talk) 04:03, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Office titles

Can you stop imposing your own views on whether the title should be chair or chairperson instead of chairman. We go according to the official title used, not by our own preferences. See MOS:GNL ("articles should not be changed from one style to another unless there is a substantial reason to do so") and WP:GNL, referring to sections on when not to use such terminology.--Tærkast (Discuss) 16:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Hiding is better than deleting?

This is getting a bit much. These people haven't even been officially nominated. For you to add categories like Secretaries of Labor etc goes beyond being premature. None of these will apply for weeks, some even longer. This notion of "hidden is better" is nonsense. There is zero reason to have a hidden category that doesn't apply to them. Hiding it in the info box was a compromise, but including them in these categories needs a better reason than "it's better". Niteshift36 (talk) 03:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Bad piping (please read)

Please stop using pipes to hide away middle initials or to conceal someone having a generational suffix. WP:Piped link#When not to use discourages using pipes to make links longer than necessary, and there is no good reason to hide away middle initials or conceal how somebody has a generational suffix. You've been told before not to hide away middle initials like this. Doing so doesn't help anyone or anything, and it needlessly takes up article space. I don't know why you chose to blatantly ignore past notices, but please listen this time. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:07, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Lamberhurst (talk) 21:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I must add a notification that I am worried about editing behavior of this user, he seems rational but appearances are deceptive, he actually changing facts. --ThecentreCZ (talk) 17:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Use edit summaries

While I'm sure it's blindingly obvious to you what you were trying to do in your edits, the overwhelming frequency of edits with no edit summary of any kind makes it impossible for other editors to determine your goals and objectives. Please be sure to use edit summaries for all edits, if not for yourself then for the benefit of those trying to make sense of your work. Alansohn (talk) 14:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Editsums

My editsum: better img
Your editsum: Apparently free use, front view, full face headshot isn't the "better image"?
Followed by: Dummy: The current photo is also more recent and of a much higher quality.

To answer your Q, no, photo preferences are mostly subjective, IMO your preferred image is inferior, he looks like an imp in that photo. p.s. Thanks for calling me "dummy", asshole. IHTS (talk) 09:52, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Office orders

Dude, I thought we were over this? [4] What is your thing with removing office orders? I'd appreciate a response, as opposed to silence. You assured a couple of us that this stuff was behind you. Redverton (talk) 21:53, 14 December 2016 (UTC)