User talk:JocularJellyfish/Archives/2017/October

This is an archive of User talk:JocularJellyfish. Please do not change it in any way. – JocularJellyfish ^Talk _Contribs 16:20, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Hargan[edit]

Just because Hargan was confirmed as the Deputy Secretary, does not automatically mean he'll be the acting head secretary. Please wait until sources (including The White House) say he's been named the acting head secretary. In all honesty, I highly doubt he'll be the acting secretary unless Wright resigns. Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 20:48, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Has he been confirmed? All I can find is the motion to invoke cloture, not a confirmation vote itself. Although I'm under the impression that he would become Acting Secretary upon his confirmation, because Deputy Secretary takes precedence over Acting Assistant Secretary, which is Wright's rank. JTRH (talk) 21:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JTRH:, yes. See this link. – JocularJellyfish ^Talk _Contribs 21:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rank doesn't matter for this situation – unless Hargan had already been in the dept. when Price resigned. We still need to wait for sources or the HHS website to state he's going to be the Acting Secretary. As of right now, Wright is, and will be, the Acting Secretary as Trump specifically appointed him to the position until a permanent has been confirmed or he appoints someone else to act. Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 22:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It also makes no sense to "hide" the content in the article because we have no idea whether or not he'll be Acting Secretary. It's just more work you're causing, especially if he doesn't become Acting Secretary. And can you explain this edit? Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 22:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Corkythehornetfan:, I did that revert so I could undo your other edit which removed the "acting secretary" position. As you can see, I did add that image back to the infobox. – JocularJellyfish ^Talk _Contribs 01:14, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At least one media source has explicitly reported that he is not becoming Acting Secretary. JTRH (talk) 04:43, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries and stops[edit]

When you revert someone's edit, which is CLEARLY what you just did in regards to my edit, use an accurate edit summary. "Fixed" or "fixed box" doesn't cut it. Say that you are reverting. Doing otherwise can be considered as misleading. With that out of the way, the Wikipedia discussion on stops ended in a clear No Consensus. With no Wikipedia consensus, project history and usage governs. It has long been the norm in WikiProject United States courts and judges to use stops and it is my intention to return fully to that usage. If you think you can gain a project wide consensus to change the general practice, then fine, but barring that, you should conform with the established project usage, which is to use stops in degree initials. Safiel (talk) 00:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Pennsylvania's 18th congressional district special election, 2017[edit]

The article Pennsylvania's 18th congressional district special election, 2017 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Incomplete, no context.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 01:41, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Judges[edit]

Since you can't seem to discuss other than reverting, I'll come to you. Judges were confirmed on the day that the Senate votes. They are not commissioned until they are sworn in. David Nye wasn't sworn in until August 1, making that his official day of commission... as stated by the the website. Bush was officially commissioned on August 31, and the same goes for the others. It is when they are sworn in, not when they are confirmed. It is just like any other government position... they don't officially start until they are sworn in. I'm done playing these childish games, so please respond here. Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 21:55, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Corkythehornetfan:, I'm well aware of the difference between confirmation date and commission date. The commission is different from the date a judge is sworn in. If you look at the Federal Judicial Center links (ex: [1]), it is a Federal Government site that reflects the official date of commission. I think thus that you are incorrect in this matter. – JocularJellyfish ^Talk _Contribs 21:57, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They still don't take cases until they are sworn in. Misleading readers is what is happening here. They don't take cases until they are sworn in. Besides, I believe USCourts.gov (it is a federal government website) is more reliable since it is their official website. They should know more than anyone when their judges are commissioned. I'm done playing these childish games. Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 22:04, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFC[edit]

There's an RFC you may wish to comment on here: Talk:Political appointments by Donald Trump#Request for comment on tracking progress of nominations. Marquardtika (talk) 21:41, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]