User talk:JocularJellyfish/Archives/2017/December

This is an archive of User talk:JocularJellyfish. Please do not change it in any way. – JocularJellyfish ^Talk _Contribs 22:43, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, JocularJellyfish. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Break[edit]

I'm not sure if this edit is your attempt to be the last to edit the page or your lack of knowledge, but technically {{break}} uses the "/"... Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 21:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Corkythehornetfan:, I'm going to direct you to this discussion on the Teahouse. – JocularJellyfish ^Talk _Contribs 22:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware that it doesn't matter which one to use, but the fact that you remove them is kind of ridiculous when it has no effect on the format. Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 03:45, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Al Franken[edit]

Please do not change articles regarding the junior Senator from Minnesota until there has actually been a change. Jonathunder (talk) 04:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Franken's resignation hasn't taken effect yet. He's still a US Senator. GoodDay (talk) 21:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert[edit]

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.

Trent Franks[edit]

As of yesterday, he announced that his resignation would be effective January 31. Has he since made it effective immediately? JTRH (talk) 23:22, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JTRH:, Yes. See this link. – JocularJellyfish ^Talk _Contribs 23:25, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aha. Sorry. I've been giving an exam for three hours and was behind on the news. My apologies. I'll check to see if any of my reverts need to be undone. JTRH (talk) 23:27, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JTRH:, don't worry about it. I only just found out as well. – JocularJellyfish ^Talk _Contribs 23:28, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies[edit]

I created Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies being as several of his nominees have been of contention, i.e. L. Steven Grasz, Amy Coney Barrett. And now with the withdraw requests of Brett Talley and Jeff Mateer--I think the article makes sense to create and maintain.

However, it has been nominated for deletion and I'd like your viewpoint on the matter. (See:Afd:Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies). Snickers2686 (talk) 18:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy holidays![edit]

Happy Holidays

This user wishes you a very Happy Holiday season.

Marquardtika (talk) 06:04, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Marquardtika:, and to you! – JocularJellyfish ^Talk _Contribs 22:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes reviewer granted[edit]

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.

Alex Shih (talk) 04:37, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I have declined your rollback request. Not to meant as criticism, but I have some reservations about your counter vandalism experience. If you would like to request rollback again after reviewing pending changes for a while, please feel free to do so. Regards, Alex Shih (talk) 04:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex Shih:, good to know. I will work to gain the necessary experience. – JocularJellyfish ^Talk _Contribs 04:47, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	I've run into your work many times on law- and politics- related articles. Keep up the good work! —cnzx (talk • contribs) 04:49, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to this comment before editing List of federal judges appointed by Donald Trump[edit]

I am passing this to several folks for their reference, so if you get this, you aren't the only one, Talk:List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Donald_Trump#Speaking_of_not_getting_ahead_of_ourselves. Bottom line, nobody should be removing Judges from the list until the morning of January 4th, when the Congressional Record of January 3rd will be available, properly sourcing the anticipated edit. Safiel (talk) 02:59, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Safiel: thanks for the info. – JocularJellyfish ^Talk _Contribs 16:48, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Revert[edit]

You reverted, with no explanation other than the word better, a move I made on the Michelle Fischbach of some text from the Minnesota Constitution to a footnote and undid a technical fix I made to a ref name from a number. Perhaps you didn't intend to do those things. If you did, please provide a reason. Jonathunder (talk) 20:59, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonathunder: I reverted because the "personal life" section was now including footnotes, among which were the note you added and the references. I don't have an issue with your note, so I changed the formatting to make "notes" and "references" separate big-level sections. Please take a look at the article now to see if you approve of it. – JocularJellyfish ^Talk _Contribs 21:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is better. Thank you for adding the missing "notes" header. Jonathunder (talk) 21:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]