This is an archive of User talk:JocularJellyfish. Please do not change it in any way. – JocularJellyfish Talk Contribs 00:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC).
Talk Archives |
---|
By Year |
Go to my talk page |
I noticed that you reverted my edit. You said that it was fine as it is, but by all indications Max Baucus retired but did not resign his seat. Dschslava Δx parlez moi 22:05, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
@ Dschslava:, Baucus resigned when he was appointed U.S. Ambassador to China by President Obama. JocularJellyfish ( talk) 22:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Jon Tester shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ~ GB fan 22:52, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
I would recommend that before you post something to a article that you make sure that you post links to the article concerned. The post that I reverted appeared as a red link so I removed it. Referring to my edit as vandalism is in error; it was an honest mistake on my part because I was unaware of the award. I have reverted hundreds of instances of vandalism in my Wikipedia career and your post appeared to be a case of vandalism because your user page is a redlink and what you posted was a redlink. From observing the other posts on your talk page it appears that you sometimes operate fast and loose with Wikipedia standards. Although it isn't required I would recommend that you post a little something about yourself on your user page...people might take you a bit more seriously...or don't...it's your page. Cuprum17 ( talk) 19:18, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Why do you think POTUS should be in the Speaker's infobox?— GoldRingChip 18:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
@ GoldRingChip:, It is existing precedent. Also, having the POTUS in the info box helps understand whether or not they had control of the house during each speakers' tenure. JocularJellyfish ( talk) 19:11, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
In that case, I will concede the discussion to you two and agree with the removal of the POTUS from the speaker infoboxes. JocularJellyfish ( talk) 20:37, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Either way, "existing precedent" is a tough argument for reverting an edit. WP:BB!— GoldRingChip 21:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)