User talk:Thesavagenorwegian
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
 | Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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 |
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:
- Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
- Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
- Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
TonyBallioni (talk) 01:38, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Map Request!
Hello! I saw your map work for 2020 United States Senate elections. I believe that a map showing the Petitioners and Respondents in California v. Texas would aid user comprehension. I don't possess the artistic ability to do it myself, but I would appreciate if you could!
Petitioners: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Kentucky, and the District of Columbia. [1]
Respondents: Texas, Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia [2]
Thank you for any help you can provide! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThatSuperNerd (talk • contribs) 06:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- Should I make Kentucky a different color, since the governor is the plaintiff in that case, and not the state? Also, right now I'm using yellow and green, any objections to that color scheme? TheSavageNorwegian 00:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- It is done.
TheSavageNorwegian 00:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you! Upon further research, Kentucky should probably be a different color. In the state Attorney General is a Republican and the Governor is a Democrat. While the Governor well might be acting in his official capacity (and as the former Attorney General of the state), he does not represent the state. Only the Attorney General can officially do that. Also on the colors, I thought of it as blue (Plaintiff) v. red (Respondent), but it frankly doesn't matter to me, and I don't want to unnecessarily editorialize the partisanship in the litigation. I do love the map, I am glad that you could make it. I think it will add a lot to the article and improve the reader's understanding of the situation greatly! ThatSuperNerd (talk) 02:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)