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)

You obviously are ignoring notices on purpose at this point for no good reason. PLEASE DESIST WITH BAD PIPING. This means DO NOT HIDE AWAY SUFFIXES OR MIDDLE NAMES/INITIALS WITH PIPES per the link I gave before. Also, per that link and WP:Manual of Style/Linking#Link specificity, it's also not helpful to pipe city articles containing state names only to include another state link afterwards. Just use the one singular link instead. It also saves article space. In other words, just use [[City, State]] instead of [[City, State|City]], [[State]]. For example, use [[Hyannisport, Massachusetts]] instead of [[Hyannisport, Massachusetts|Hyannisport]], [[Massachusetts]]. You seriously need to start listening when people ask you to change your editing habits and take the chance to improve yourself rather than continuing bad practices. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:20, 12 March 2017 (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)

@Ihardlythinkso: - (talk page stalker), fairly certain that 'dummy' was meant to refer to a dummy edit in this case. Connormah (talk) 20:02, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Have no idea how you get to "fairly certain". It wasn't 'dummy' it was 'Dummy', followed by colon, which serves to draw attention to what follows. You & he are suggesting two different topics in that editsum. A colon w/ not be appropriate for that. We have only text here to express anything. Not buying after-the-damage-is-done excuse-making, especially on a revert. Just makes it worse. Am really not interested to discuss further. Merry Xmas. IHTS (talk) 21:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Enjoy the holiday, whether it's Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, Quis separabit? 05:50, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Happy New Year. Prosperous 2017. Quis separabit? 04:41, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Requiembellishere's Infobox Jihad

Well, that being said (Your comment after reverting Chuck Grassley's page), and I have read your notes elsewhere and had a look for myself, I do not particularly respect or understand whatever authority these 48 anonymous voters took to change this 'policy' and engage in an obvious exercise of secular censorship or repression, I understand that while wikipedia is somewhat of a standard, or a platform for speech and a widely used tool, it is a private enterprise all the same, and if any of us is to engage in building it up, editing it, partaking of it, then we must abide by wikipedia's rules. - however that is a god-awful system of democracy, without any separation of powers, accountability or publicity whatsoever - a vote of 48 users (held at exactly what time?), with neither accountability or identification of any of them (There may as well be 47 clones for all anybody knows) can decide just about anything they please - With 10,000s of editors of English wikipedia, how exactly do 48 voters constitute a quorum of any sort? Every one of them is self-appointed, they vote on no-one's behalf and yet they can change just about anything here, this is an absolute asinine and ridiculous system.

That said I apparently must abide by it, this is 'official' wikipedia policy, however you going about on this jihad you've been having since they took this vote is a little distracting, I would like to know what your purposes are by it, as whenever you run into opposition to your vandalistic jihadi edits you simply slap on your Commisar's hat and supply a link to the "official 'village pump' policy", which cannot under any circumstances be either debated, changed or challenged, and must be strictly adhered to, though itself it is vague, what's your purpose in doing this, and why do you suppose covering up people's professed religion (whether that equates to faith or not) is helpful on a supposed all-encompassing free encyclopedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LikkerdySplit (talk • contribs) 00:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

January 2017

I know you're intent on making every infobox in WP conform to your whims, but please take a little more care in understanding the subject when making your changes. George W. Romney was never an Independent politician, as the link you added claimed; before 1959 he was a not yet a politician and was unaffiliated with any party. That's a significant difference. And putting three colleges in his infobox is terribly misleading. He was notable for being a self-taught, self-made man, who never stayed long at any of the colleges where he took classes and who never earned any degrees. By putting three colleges in the infobox most readers will assume he held multiple degrees, the exact opposite of what really was. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Hassan & Morse

I recommend you study up on some time factors. If Hassan resigned at midnight, then her gubernatorial tenure would still end on January 2. Take note of other midnight changes, concerning dates like List of Presidents of Mexico & List of governors of New York. They can't both hold office at the same time, thus the reason Hassan's tenure ending date is January 2, 2017. GoodDay (talk) 05:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I've opened a discussion at the Hassan article. It appears you're misreading your own source. GoodDay (talk) 05:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Quick question

Hi there, this is just a matter of curiosity since I don't get involved much with categories in Syria. What was the purpose of this edit? Icebob99 (talk) 14:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Order of precedence

What do we do about this document (https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/265124.pdf)? Do we have to change the whole page? Sbb618 (talk) 18:55, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Jared Kushner

Hi, just wanted to let you know you violated discretionary sanctions by reinstating Kushner's former political party. You must seek consensus on the talk page before you reinsert a revert. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Just to add, I don't care but I just thought I'd let you know in case you weren't aware of the issue. There are people who will grab onto any misdeed if it suits them. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Omarosa

Regarding Omarosa - different sources have the job listed in different ways, but at brass tax it the same basic job Valerie Jarrett has now (until the 20th).

Vjmlhds (talk) 23:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

January 2017

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Template:Trump transition. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Vjmlhds 19:30, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Template:Trump transition.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Please....let it go. Vjmlhds 20:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Jumping the gun

With all due respect, you're being difficult again. The US Senate could easily confirm Sessions on Inauguration Day. Let's wait until that day arrives. GoodDay (talk) 04:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Barack Obama

Plz review pending requests in Talk page. Regards. 46.71.225.61 (talk) 15:14, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Jeff Sessions InfoBox

So you reverted my edit on the infobox citing Wikipedia policy. I found nothing that backs up your revert in what you cited. In the style guide for infoboxes it mentions abbreviations as acceptable. University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa is redundant. It would be like saying Northern Illinois University, DeKalb. Just a heads up I'm reverting your edit.

--Mpen320, talk. February 5, 2017, 2:48 PM CST.

Chicago Meetup at Sulzer Regional Library!

Hey there! I'm hosting a meetup at the at the Sulzer Regional Library on Saturday March 25th from 12 PM to 4:30 PM. You're welcome to come and work together with other editors on articles or other contributions, get to know other editors around Chicago, and ask any questions you might about using or contributing to Wikipedia. Food will be available, and we'll likely go out for dinner afterwards as a group. If you're interested in joining us, please RSVP at the event page here! Thanks, I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 20:23, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was sent by I JethroBT through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:23, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Chairman vs Chair/Chairperson

Can you stop changing the titles to your preference. Guidelines dictate that we should use the official titles of the office, not adhere to our own point of view.--Tærkast (Discuss) 17:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Cara Rodriguez

I wonder where you got the information that she's born on June 24, 1976 since I can't seem to find that information on google. Ueutyi (talk) 05:12, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Your Linda McMahon Edit

First of all your edit was correct and I fully support it. I just want to state the possibility that it was not intended in a paternalistic manner. Within her WWE tenure she was referred to as Mrs. McMahon and I would not surprised if someone writing (or cutting and pasting) was just used to referring to her as Mrs. McMahon.

I could be wrong, I just know that people get weird when people play fictional versions of themselves. 73.61.8.149 (talk) 07:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bill Frist, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bill Anderson (politician) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:54, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Jarrett

Do you have any source for this edit? The reason why I put a "?" was because the article itself does not speak about the subject. How do you know Jarrett was on the ballot/lost the re-election that year? Do you have additional sources you are seeing to lead you to believe that? Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Cabinet-level officials

Thanks for tweaking the spaces in my citation for Case's confirmation. I generally add spaces between parameters to make it easier to read the template in editing, especially on small screens. I was editing on my smartphone, which I often do, but I was especially tired and added extra spaces to make it easier to paste the arguments in correctly. But the "Term began" date was correct, March 15. The story is dated "March 15 at 3:37 PM"; that's Washington, DC time, which was EDT = UTC - 4; so the UTC = 2017.03.15T1937, not March 16, and the confirmation had just taken place. So I'm going to change the date back to the 15th. Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 17:11, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@Thnidu: Confirmation does not equal assumption of office and Coats was not sworn in yesterday. Therequiembellishere (talk) 17:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah yes, you are right. My apologies and my thanks. --Thnidu (talk) 01:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Arthur B. Langlie (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Washington

Daniel J. Evans (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Washington

Everett Dirksen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Committee on the District of Columbia

Zell Miller (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Georgia

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:52, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Infobox officeholder#Religion parameter

You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Infobox officeholder#Religion parameter. Thanks Musdan77 (talk) 05:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)Template:Z48

Michael J. Hunter

I noticed while you re-re-ordered the infobox, you removed some info from it (the caption for the image and his service in the state legislature). I have re-added that information. MB298 (talk) 03:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

ANI dispute w/SlackerDelphi

You're not involved. I pinged you only as a courtesy since you had been making recent edits to the article. Activist (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Infobox Changes to Predecessor/Successor

Do you have any consensus stating that acting officials that aren't currently in office are left in the infoboxes of confirmed people like Robert Lighthizer? As far as I know, the established consensus is that only senate-confirmed/recess appointed officials are put in the infobox. If you don't have consensus, please stop unilaterally making these changes with no given authority. I appreciate your quick reply. JocularJellyfish (talk) 02:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Bill Weld

Try this by way of explanation. Yours, Quis separabit? 18:17, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@Rms125a@hotmail.com: They often aren't the titles. In some of these cases, they literally ARE the title. You're just removing valid, well sourced nicknames based on your personal preference. Therequiembellishere (talk) 18:19, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@Therequiembellishere -- Nope. This is a project and I am not the only editor working on it (see [4]). Quis separabit? 18:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@Rms125a@hotmail.com: That's a much fairer justification, and which should be what your citing and not those other irrelevant guidelines. Therequiembellishere (talk) 18:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@Therequiembellishere -- This is a project and I am not the only editor working on it. @Muboshgu is at least one other. See here and here. Quis separabit? 18:26, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Guess I am not really good at navigating the voluminous WP editing rules and regs. Quis separabit? 18:31, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@Rms125a@hotmail.com: I'm just saying that it's not the justification you were using and it sort of seems like you found it post-this discussion (which is fine) and that it should be your reasoning going forward. I'll also say that having read that, it's not a guideline I terribly agree with. What is considered a "common" nickname is subjective (do most non-Russian speaking people know Nastya is the most common nickname for Anastasia?), nor does a nickname's general commonality align at all with it's specific usage as related to the subject of the article. Just because many Thomas's go by Tom does not mean Thomas Jefferson went by Tom. Or when there are multiple common nicknames, we can identify which one they did or did not use (Christopher into Chris or Topher; Richard into Rich, Rick, Dick, Richie, Dickie, etc; Katherine into Kathy, Kate, Katie, etc). Making it clear that this is a name used by the subject and that they are likely to be referred to as such by many reliable sources serves a greater encyclopedic benefit and value to the reader than omitting it, IMO. And it is such a brief injection in the lede that I hardly see the harm in including it. Therequiembellishere (talk) 18:33, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@Rms125a@hotmail.com: Also the second guideline you cite (MOS:FULLNAME) also isn't really related to nicknames. You're kind of fishing here. WP:QUOTENAME is the basis you're standing on, you don't need to find anything more. Therequiembellishere (talk) 18:36, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

OK. I will find other things to do and desist from this project while you seek out some reliable guidance as to how to proceed, and we'll confer. Quis separabit? 18:37, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@Rms125a@hotmail.com: I don't need "reliable guidance" to discuss the merits of a guideline with you, surely. We can "confer" on its face. Therequiembellishere (talk) 18:39, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I think the relevant standard is from MOS:LEGALNAME, if a person has a well-known common hypocorism, used in lieu of a given name, it is not presented between quote marks following the last given name or initial, as for Tom Hopper which has just Thomas Edward Hopper.

That says pretty much verbatim what WP:QUOTENAME says and I have the same critiques for it. Therequiembellishere (talk) 00:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed your critiques. When the article is "Bill Weld", the MOS:LEGALNAME guideline says his name should be his legal name (William Weld) *without* the hypocorism. If the article were William Weld, there might be a reason for adding "Bill", but in this case it's just adding redundant information that gets in the way. So what's your gripe with the guideline in this case? Tarl N. (discuss) 02:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

E.g., by the way, Bill Clinton. I've seen edit wars adding and removing it. It seems to currently have stabilized without it.Tarl N. (discuss) 02:57, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Editor of the Week

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your work in mainspace. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:MelanieN submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

Therequiembellishere has been editing Wikipedia for more than 10 years and has more than 90,000 edits, almost all of them to article space. He has created 80 articles, but his best contributions recently are quiet ones: tweaks to improve articles, repetitive cleanup jobs, etc. He specializes in the kind of almost-invisible work that keeps Wikipedia readable, and I think he should be recognized for this important service.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient user box}}

Thanks again for your efforts! Lepricavark (talk) 22:46, 20 May 2017 (UTC)