Notice: I was previously User:MikkelJSmith but I lost my password.
|
|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
![]() |
Hi MikkelJSmith2! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC) |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi MikkelJSmith2,
I added the above section to the above linked article, but am not as good with wikitables. Would you, or Arctic gnome, mind fixing the first two columns of the table to follow the formatting of the preceding tables?
Cheers,
--
Doug Mehus
T·
C
18:37, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi MikkelJSmith2,
Thanks for the heads up re: reference date formats, but I have seen both date formats used. While I prefer DD MMM YYYY, I live with the MONTH DD, YEAR format as well. To me, I'm not especially concerned either way so long as it is correct. Can you point me to where it says that the latter is the preferred style?
Thanks,
--
Doug Mehus
T·
C
20:21, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi MikkelJSmith2,
Your citation updates at the "Current composition" section of the Senate of Canada seems to have broken the footnote 58. I tried seeing what was wrong, but it looks like the refname is correct.
If you can have a look, I'm not sure how the "efn" template works, that'd be great.
Cheers,
--
Doug Mehus
T·
C
22:55, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi MikkelJSmith2,
I like you and appreciate greatly your contributions, your updating the seating plan, and everything that you do, but I wouldn't be arguing so strongly if I didn't think Huon erred in prematurely closing the "help me" request. There's something we're not doing in getting the updated seating plan to populate both on the main Commons page, in the maximized image preview, and in the thumbnails. It may be showing up in other places, but not everywhere. When Arctic.gnome updated the seating plan previously, it updated everywhere. That's why I think Huon prematurely short-circuited the discussion to close a "help me" request (which was odd since it was the only one open at the time) instead of trying to explain to us, thoroughly, what we were missing.
Hope that helps,
--
Doug Mehus
T·
C
15:52, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi MikkelJSmith2,
I just thought I'd drop you a quick note to make sure everything was OK and that you weren't upset with me (see preceding comment on this talkpage). I just really feel like Huon closed the "help me" request far too prematurely and without adequately addressing the reason for why the Senate seating plan image was not updated in all places.
Anyway, did you see the latest CTV news article in which Sen. [[Yuen Pau Woo] is pushing for additional Parliament of Canada Act amendments that would formally end the Senate as a partisan chamber (presumably, by ending such titles as Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition in the Senate, Leader of the Government in the Senate (already removed functionally, via Senate procedural rules) and eliminate the ability of the minority opposition caucus to filibuster debate? -- Doug Mehus T· C 20:29, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Cheers,
--
Doug Mehus
T·
C
20:29, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi MikkelJSmith2,
Over in an RfD discussion, administrator Thryduulf referred me to the {{they}} template that can be used in combination with an editor or administrator's username and it'll automatically insert the appropriate gender pronoun. BDD and I suspect it's pulling from the "Internationalisation" section of one's "Preferences," but, having said, there's also a Category:Male Wikipedians (and related categories) with userboxes you can use on your userpage to publicly identify yourself in a certain way. I chose the one that also displays my age on my own userpage. Anyway, back to the tagging, you would use an applicable template like "they", "them", etc., and tag the user like {{they|Dmehus}} would return "he" because I've identified my pronoun.
Cheers,
--
Doug Mehus
T·
C
15:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Firstly, WP:REDLINK does not mean that every person's name in an article always gets to be a presumptive redlink just in case they someday become notable enough to get a Wikipedia article. Mark Mulroney can be left redlinked if you can show hard evidence that he already clears our notability standards and just doesn't have an article yet, but he does not get to stay a redlink in perpetuity just because there's a possibility that he might become more notable in the future than he is today.
Secondly, we don't care if a Twitter tweet is from God herself — Twitter is always an inherently unreliable and invalid source for Wikipedia content regardless of who does or doesn't tweet it. Stuff that Globe and Mail journalists publish in The Globe and Mail is obviously valid sourcing for Wikipedia content — but stuff they say on their own time on social networking platforms is not. It has nothing to do with who's tweeting it — it has to do with the fact that the platform is not a reliable media outlet. You have to show a news article which discusses Marilyn Gladu's potential candidacy before you can add her to the list, not a tweet. Bearcat ( talk) 19:33, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Having re-read over the sources. It appears that Scheer's resignation as party leader on December 12, was effective immediately. Unlike the usual practice, he didn't choose to remain as leader until the party chose a permanent successor. This necessitated the party caucus to chose an interim leader, until a permanent one was chosen & they chose Scheer. This is a very rare situation in Canadian politics, indeed. Note- When Joe Clark resigned (effective immediately) in 1983 as Progressive Conservative leader, to bring about a new Leadership convention (in which he was a candidate - running for his former job), someone else was chosen as interim leader. GoodDay ( talk) 16:28, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Anyways, I've raised the topic at Andrew Scheer & Conservative Party of Canada articles, as well as at WP:CANADA. GoodDay ( talk) 16:32, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
I'll abide by the result of the Rfc, no matter what that turns out to be. GoodDay ( talk) 17:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This edit [1] is a violation of both of these editing restrictions:
You should self-revert immediately. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 19:10, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi MikkelJSmith2. I noticed you closed some discussions on Talk:Media coverage of Bernie Sanders. In doing so, please be mindful of WP:ACD and WP:RFCCLOSE. Editors who are involved with an article should usually not close RfCs about those articles. If the close in uncontroversial, most editors will look the other way per WP:IAR, but if there is a perception that you may have an opinion about the discussion that you have closed, it can ruffle some feathers. - Mr X 🖋 15:09, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
[2]. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 15:57, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. 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. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 18:38, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
If you could direct me to the talk page where the consensus was made, that would be greatly appreciated! I am trying my best to point out an area where we disagree; i. e. no consensus, and talk about it as Wikipedia pages instruct...sorry I'm kind of new at this About Nationwide opinion polling for the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries: I cannot find any talk page nor any "consensus" that indicates that debate lines should be included on the graph focused on polling percentages over time by various candidates. I certainly do not share in this "consensus" and think the lines should not be present for 4 reasons. 1. The lines muddle the graph by adding another component for the reader to interpret. The lines distract from the main message--a comparison between candidates' polling over time. 2. The debates are arbitrary demarcations put on the graph, and none of the rest of that article discusses the debates. 3. According to the political & sports analytics website 538, the debates rarely have any meaningful impact on polling. 4. The lines are an ugly color & make the graph less visually appealing. Please let me know what actions I can take to correct this graph other than removing these lines & communicating my concerns at the time of removal (and now communicating my concerns directly to you)! Thanks!!
@ MikkelJSmith:
GoodDay or Ahunt can correct me if I'm wrong, but I've noticed you using reFill to fill in citation references that didn't need it, like this one. In that one, the reference was recalling a named reference, so didn't technically need to have the full citation information entered again. I suppose it's probably fine to fill it in anyway, but just not necessary. Not a big deal or anything and, again, if I'm wrong, I'll stand corrected. ;)
Happy editing,
--
Doug Mehus
T·
C
21:43, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Maybe you've seen the news already, but: the PSG got another floor crosser today, bringing them to 9 members— and thus official status again. We did indeed do well to keep them listed as a caucus. — Kawnhr ( talk)
Hi, wanted to ask you whether there were any further thoughts regarding this discussion of your reverts on Senate of Canada. I started writing on the talk page there, but changed my mind and thought I'd check in here. I'd like to do some more work on the page, but feel hindered by the specter of being reverted once again. -- Cornellier ( talk) 10:54, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Notice: I was previously User:MikkelJSmith but I lost my password.
|
|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
![]() |
Hi MikkelJSmith2! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC) |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi MikkelJSmith2,
I added the above section to the above linked article, but am not as good with wikitables. Would you, or Arctic gnome, mind fixing the first two columns of the table to follow the formatting of the preceding tables?
Cheers,
--
Doug Mehus
T·
C
18:37, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi MikkelJSmith2,
Thanks for the heads up re: reference date formats, but I have seen both date formats used. While I prefer DD MMM YYYY, I live with the MONTH DD, YEAR format as well. To me, I'm not especially concerned either way so long as it is correct. Can you point me to where it says that the latter is the preferred style?
Thanks,
--
Doug Mehus
T·
C
20:21, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi MikkelJSmith2,
Your citation updates at the "Current composition" section of the Senate of Canada seems to have broken the footnote 58. I tried seeing what was wrong, but it looks like the refname is correct.
If you can have a look, I'm not sure how the "efn" template works, that'd be great.
Cheers,
--
Doug Mehus
T·
C
22:55, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi MikkelJSmith2,
I like you and appreciate greatly your contributions, your updating the seating plan, and everything that you do, but I wouldn't be arguing so strongly if I didn't think Huon erred in prematurely closing the "help me" request. There's something we're not doing in getting the updated seating plan to populate both on the main Commons page, in the maximized image preview, and in the thumbnails. It may be showing up in other places, but not everywhere. When Arctic.gnome updated the seating plan previously, it updated everywhere. That's why I think Huon prematurely short-circuited the discussion to close a "help me" request (which was odd since it was the only one open at the time) instead of trying to explain to us, thoroughly, what we were missing.
Hope that helps,
--
Doug Mehus
T·
C
15:52, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi MikkelJSmith2,
I just thought I'd drop you a quick note to make sure everything was OK and that you weren't upset with me (see preceding comment on this talkpage). I just really feel like Huon closed the "help me" request far too prematurely and without adequately addressing the reason for why the Senate seating plan image was not updated in all places.
Anyway, did you see the latest CTV news article in which Sen. [[Yuen Pau Woo] is pushing for additional Parliament of Canada Act amendments that would formally end the Senate as a partisan chamber (presumably, by ending such titles as Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition in the Senate, Leader of the Government in the Senate (already removed functionally, via Senate procedural rules) and eliminate the ability of the minority opposition caucus to filibuster debate? -- Doug Mehus T· C 20:29, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Cheers,
--
Doug Mehus
T·
C
20:29, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi MikkelJSmith2,
Over in an RfD discussion, administrator Thryduulf referred me to the {{they}} template that can be used in combination with an editor or administrator's username and it'll automatically insert the appropriate gender pronoun. BDD and I suspect it's pulling from the "Internationalisation" section of one's "Preferences," but, having said, there's also a Category:Male Wikipedians (and related categories) with userboxes you can use on your userpage to publicly identify yourself in a certain way. I chose the one that also displays my age on my own userpage. Anyway, back to the tagging, you would use an applicable template like "they", "them", etc., and tag the user like {{they|Dmehus}} would return "he" because I've identified my pronoun.
Cheers,
--
Doug Mehus
T·
C
15:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Firstly, WP:REDLINK does not mean that every person's name in an article always gets to be a presumptive redlink just in case they someday become notable enough to get a Wikipedia article. Mark Mulroney can be left redlinked if you can show hard evidence that he already clears our notability standards and just doesn't have an article yet, but he does not get to stay a redlink in perpetuity just because there's a possibility that he might become more notable in the future than he is today.
Secondly, we don't care if a Twitter tweet is from God herself — Twitter is always an inherently unreliable and invalid source for Wikipedia content regardless of who does or doesn't tweet it. Stuff that Globe and Mail journalists publish in The Globe and Mail is obviously valid sourcing for Wikipedia content — but stuff they say on their own time on social networking platforms is not. It has nothing to do with who's tweeting it — it has to do with the fact that the platform is not a reliable media outlet. You have to show a news article which discusses Marilyn Gladu's potential candidacy before you can add her to the list, not a tweet. Bearcat ( talk) 19:33, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Having re-read over the sources. It appears that Scheer's resignation as party leader on December 12, was effective immediately. Unlike the usual practice, he didn't choose to remain as leader until the party chose a permanent successor. This necessitated the party caucus to chose an interim leader, until a permanent one was chosen & they chose Scheer. This is a very rare situation in Canadian politics, indeed. Note- When Joe Clark resigned (effective immediately) in 1983 as Progressive Conservative leader, to bring about a new Leadership convention (in which he was a candidate - running for his former job), someone else was chosen as interim leader. GoodDay ( talk) 16:28, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Anyways, I've raised the topic at Andrew Scheer & Conservative Party of Canada articles, as well as at WP:CANADA. GoodDay ( talk) 16:32, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
I'll abide by the result of the Rfc, no matter what that turns out to be. GoodDay ( talk) 17:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This edit [1] is a violation of both of these editing restrictions:
You should self-revert immediately. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 19:10, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi MikkelJSmith2. I noticed you closed some discussions on Talk:Media coverage of Bernie Sanders. In doing so, please be mindful of WP:ACD and WP:RFCCLOSE. Editors who are involved with an article should usually not close RfCs about those articles. If the close in uncontroversial, most editors will look the other way per WP:IAR, but if there is a perception that you may have an opinion about the discussion that you have closed, it can ruffle some feathers. - Mr X 🖋 15:09, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
[2]. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 15:57, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. 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. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 18:38, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
If you could direct me to the talk page where the consensus was made, that would be greatly appreciated! I am trying my best to point out an area where we disagree; i. e. no consensus, and talk about it as Wikipedia pages instruct...sorry I'm kind of new at this About Nationwide opinion polling for the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries: I cannot find any talk page nor any "consensus" that indicates that debate lines should be included on the graph focused on polling percentages over time by various candidates. I certainly do not share in this "consensus" and think the lines should not be present for 4 reasons. 1. The lines muddle the graph by adding another component for the reader to interpret. The lines distract from the main message--a comparison between candidates' polling over time. 2. The debates are arbitrary demarcations put on the graph, and none of the rest of that article discusses the debates. 3. According to the political & sports analytics website 538, the debates rarely have any meaningful impact on polling. 4. The lines are an ugly color & make the graph less visually appealing. Please let me know what actions I can take to correct this graph other than removing these lines & communicating my concerns at the time of removal (and now communicating my concerns directly to you)! Thanks!!
@ MikkelJSmith:
GoodDay or Ahunt can correct me if I'm wrong, but I've noticed you using reFill to fill in citation references that didn't need it, like this one. In that one, the reference was recalling a named reference, so didn't technically need to have the full citation information entered again. I suppose it's probably fine to fill it in anyway, but just not necessary. Not a big deal or anything and, again, if I'm wrong, I'll stand corrected. ;)
Happy editing,
--
Doug Mehus
T·
C
21:43, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Maybe you've seen the news already, but: the PSG got another floor crosser today, bringing them to 9 members— and thus official status again. We did indeed do well to keep them listed as a caucus. — Kawnhr ( talk)
Hi, wanted to ask you whether there were any further thoughts regarding this discussion of your reverts on Senate of Canada. I started writing on the talk page there, but changed my mind and thought I'd check in here. I'd like to do some more work on the page, but feel hindered by the specter of being reverted once again. -- Cornellier ( talk) 10:54, 16 July 2021 (UTC)