User talk:Jerzeykydd/Sept10-Dec10

United States Senate election in South Carolina, 2010

Hi, Jerzykydd. Would you please weigh in on the dispute about including the photo of ballot-qualified candidate Tom Clements over at the United States Senate election in South Carolina, 2010 page? Your 5% rule of thumb is being cited as gospel by user Toa Nidhiki05, as justification for repeatedly removing the picture. Although you have mentioned elsewhere in the talk page that you're in favor of including Clements' image, I feel that further support for inclusion would be appropriate. The link to the talk page is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_States_Senate_election_in_South_Carolina,_2010.

I should say that I'm not in favor of the 5% polling threshold for ballot qualified candidates. Why should Wikipedia have a standard for inclusion that is higher than the ballot qualifications of the state? I think a qualification that a candidate poll at 5% should maybe be a rule of thumb, and not an ironclad guideline.

However, even if we are abiding by a 5% threshold there are good reasons for including Clements' image:

• There are only three ballot qualified candidates. No crowding.
• Rasmussen, which is the only poll we have references for, generally only includes Democratic Party and Republican Party candidates in its polling, even when Independents or other party candidates are ballot qualified.
• Despite the exclusion of Clements by name from the polling, the volunteered "other candidate" response is high and consistently above 5%.
• The Clements campaign is well organized for a minor party effort. It has garnered the support of organizations like the Columbia AFL-CIO and several Democratic Party organizations, such as the Irmo Democratic Club (representing a large suburb of Columbia) have invited Clements to speak.
• The Clements campaign has raised more money than the Greene campaign and is arguably better organized.
• South Carolina media and the Associated Press are giving the Clements campaign significant coverage. Clements has been interviewed by The State, the Charleston Post & Courier, the Aiken Standard, the Florence Morning news, WIS, WLOS and SCETV Radio, among others. AP routinely mentions him in their stories on the race.

So, notwithstanding Rasmussen's refusal to include Clements in its polling, Clements' picture should appear on the Wikipedia page for this race.

Thanks. DJ Silverfish (talk) 15:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment on Chowbok talk page

"What is your problem? Why did you revert my edits?" is not exactly a pleasant way to initiate a talk page communication. I think you need to keep your attitude in check per the recent blocking.--TM 01:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Labno

In response to your query: I added Michael Labno because the Libertarian Party was recently granted ballot access through citizen petition to the U.S. Senator election in Illinois by the State Board of Elections (see Chicago Tribune). Labno was the only one of the four candidates for U.S. Senate from Illinois who did not have an article. To put it in perspective, the 2008 Libertarian candidate for U.S. Senate from Illinois (Larry Stafford) also has an article. (I am still a newbie so please let me know if I've done something wrong.) Thanks! Cardinal91 (talk) 03:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Or do you mean why did I add him to the United States Senate elections in Illinois, 2010 Infobox? I apologize in that I missed the 5% consensus. Labno is currently polling at 3% according to a recent Tribune survey. I will remove his name from the Infobox momentarily along with another update to that article for WP:NPOV. Thanks. Cardinal91 (talk) 03:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Ohio Senate 2010

Hi! You deleted the words "parties or independent" from the "minor" section, explaining that this clarification was unneccessary. However, you restored listing an "independent" underneath the "minor" [party] heading. Isn't this misleading or wrong? Am I missing something? Thanks for your response! Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 02:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I restored the "parties", also with a thought towards non-USA readers who are unfamiliar with the phrase "minor party" and "major party" in the USA context and who have even more difficutly parsing "minor" and "major" only (without "parties"). This is a matter of taste, imho. ~

However, it does seem misleading to list an independent under the heading of "minor", and this is the reason I didn't wait for your reply here, or ask for a 3rd opinion immediately on the TALK page before restoring "parties or independent". Thank you again! Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 02:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that "minor" and "major" refer to candidates, not parties, in your summary of your edit. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 10:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Mike Kelly

May I ask as to what or who an Austrailian is? Timeshift (talk) 01:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Than change it? I'm not here to correct your English. Please fix it. Timeshift (talk) 02:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Michigan gubernatorial election, 2010

Someone is inserting minor party candidates again in the Michigan gubernatorial election, 2010 article's infobox. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

AfD notice

Mike Kelly (Pennsylvania) has been nominated for deletion via AfD.--TM 21:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Quico Canseco for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Quico Canseco, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quico Canseco until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. TM 21:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Candidate articles

No, it is NOT my job to have to do all the time-consuming research to fix up the five-second fluff articles you're busy creating from a bunch of cut-and-paste stuff. You can't even be bothered to check the grammar or make it sound the least bit encyclopedic! You have no idea how much I resent your offloading the 'donkey work' to the rest of us while you swan in and create bits of fluff intended only to get your favorite candidates elected. You've been around here far too long to be doing that by mistake or through ignorance, and your partisanship is ridiculous. Go work for a campaign office instead of Wikipedia if that's all you're interested in. Consider this an official 'cease and desist' warning. Flatterworld (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Every article I've come across of these is of a Republican, and they're 'flattering' as opposed to being encyclopedic. With material copied from the campaign websites, that's to be expected. Whatever your intentions may or may not be, that's the result and it's not a good one. Flatterworld (talk) 14:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

US elections polling/infobox Wikipedia policy

Hi, you contributed to the Texas gubernatorial article and discussed a little about how to decide who goes in the infobox. I have dealt with this in the past and it is becoming clear that we need a broad Wikipedia policy consensus. I would like to enlist your help in starting the discussion on this, but I am not sure where to put it, despite being here 5 years xD. So if you know where general discussions go, let me know and Ill start it up. If not, hopefully we can figure it out. I think we can both agree that there needs to be a set policy that everyone can refer to. As it stands, there is just some precedent and uncertainty. I support precedent, but a clear decision is much better. Good day! --Metallurgist (talk) 17:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

October 2010

You have been blocked for a period of 1 month from editing for violation of your 1RR parole on Texas gubernatorial election, 2010 and Maine gubernatorial election, 2010. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Toddst1 (talk) 04:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of created articles

Candidates

Stephen Fincher

A tag has been placed on Stephen Fincher requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles – see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Arbor832466 (talk) 15:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Didn't mean to do speedy deletion. Sorry! Fixing now. Arbor832466 (talk) 15:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

A discussion has begun about whether the article Stephen Fincher, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Fincher until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arbor832466 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Paul Gosar

The article Paul Gosar has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:POLITICIAN "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article."

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Arbor832466 (talk) 15:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Andy Barr (Kentucky)

The article Andy Barr (Kentucky) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:POLITICIAN "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article."

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Arbor832466 (talk) 15:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Chuck Fleischmann

The article Chuck Fleischmann has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BIO

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Arbor832466 (talk) 19:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Steve Southerland (Florida)

The article Steve Southerland (Florida) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:POLITICIAN AND WP:BIO. Propose merge with United States House of Representatives elections in Florida, 2010#District 2*

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Arbor832466 (talk) 19:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Nan Hayworth

The article Nan Hayworth has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BIO. Propose merge with United States House of Representatives elections in New York, 2010#District 19*

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Arbor832466 (talk) 19:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Scott DesJarlais

The article Scott DesJarlais has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:POLITICAN and WP:BIO.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Arbor832466 (talk) 19:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm here (I'm a she, not a he). FYI, I've gone back and changed all of the delete templates to merges. Didn't mean to get rid of them entirely, just to put the info on the election pages, where I believe it belongs. Arbor832466 (talk) 17:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

My Response

This is the only way I can respond and discuss all these articles that I worked so hard on to create. I can make legit arguments that all these candidates have significant media coverage. But before I talk any longer I need to know User talk:Arbor832466 is listening. If you get this message please sign your name below so I know you got the message.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 17:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• Ok so you're telling me none of these articles have significant media coverage. Explain that to me.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 17:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear Jerzeykydd: You ask a very good question. Editor Arbor832466 has been attempting to have ALL of these articles either deleted, or otherwise eliminated.--InaMaka (talk) 18:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:2012 Presidential Candidates

A tag has been placed on Template:2012 Presidential Candidates requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. Green Giant (talk) 06:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Your email

You may email anyone who has elected to be email by clicking on the "E-mail this user" link on the left part of your browser when you visit someone's talk page. Please be advised that our rules on civility still apply and abuse can lead to a longer (or indefinite) block and/or revoking your ability to send such emails.

Regarding shortening your block: We already struck a deal on that once, with you agreeing to a 1RR but you let us down on that. I have no reason to believe your future actions would be different as you promised similar reforms previously.

I'm optimistic that after your block has expired (your 1RR will still be in effect) that you will return to editing in a much more productive manner. Toddst1 (talk) 17:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Andy Barr (Kentucky) for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Andy Barr (Kentucky), which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Barr (Kentucky) until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. TM 02:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

5% rule

You have repeatedly mentioned a 5% "wikipedia rule to make sure only the major candidates are in the infobox". So far I have been unable to find any such rule on wikipedia policy pages and there is no mention of it on the election infobox. Where did this rule come from? Since it has been a cornerstone of your arguments at the mediation case it is difficult to make progress on the case until we actually find this rule. Can you help?
If it's more convenient, you could email me; go to my talkpage and click on "Email this user". If you do this, please let me know whether you would like your email to remain private or be relayed to the mediation page. I will surely respect any communication that you want to keep private, but the whole point of a mediation page is that people communicate in the open and I'm keen to put any responses there on your behalf.
Perhaps there has been some confusion and you are merely quoting a rule that you want to exist. If that is the case, there are proper forums where a rule could be proposed and discussed, and with sufficient consensus from the community it might be adopted; but until that happens it's just an idea, not a rule. To try circumvent consensus by pretending that one's idea is actually a rule would be contempt for consensus, which is a Bad Thing on wikipedia.
bobrayner (talk) 03:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• I can't find the "email this user" button. I'm concerned. Do you have any idea why?--Jerzeykydd (talk) 05:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• It should be in a toolbox on the left hand side of the screen. That's odd. I just sent you an email with my address in anyway. bobrayner (talk) 09:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Before you go and get yourself banned again, why don't you discuss the issue further on the talk page? Please do not be a disruptive editor on this issue any longer.--TM 14:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Dino Rossi.jpg

We don't accept non-free images of living people. So File:Dino Rossi.jpg, that you uploaded earlier, has been tagged for deletion as it fails WP:NFCC#1 because a freely licenced image could be made. ww2censor (talk) 16:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

You reinserted a BLP violation on Jaime Herrera

Jerzeykydd, why did you revert my deletion of an anonymous IP's nonsense on Jaime Herrera? My edit was clearly marked "rvv" (revert vandalism), not "Gave no reason for revert" as you claim. In addition, the stuff that you reinserted had been put there by that same anon IP on 3 prior occasions, and deleted each time. After this 4th violation, I blocked the anon IP for 1 month for repeated violations of WP:BLP.

You are responsible for the content of any edits you make, including reinserting another editor's unsourced material. In effect, you are entirely responsible for this violation of WP:BLP. The BLP policy is an essential core policy and is not negotiable.

I see that you are just coming off of a 1 month block of your own. Please be more careful with your edits in the future, otherwise you'll likely find yourself getting another lengthy block or even a permanent one, based on your several previous blocks for other policy violations. Thanks, --Seattle Skier (talk) 10:44, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Specter/Sestak

Hey Jerzeykydd. Thanks for weighing in on my question about splitting the Sestak/Specter PA primary into a separate article. I agree with you, and the more I work on it the more I'm convinced it's the best choice. I wanted to let you know that, in case you were interested, I've started work on it in my userspace. I know it looks long, but that's because I want to ensure it's comprehensive as I don't plan to move it to the mainspace until it's GA-ready. I think it will be a tremendous informational resource once it's done. If you have any thoughts, please feel free to share them. Thanks again! — Hunter Kahn 22:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks much. I'll give you an update when I'm finished and move it out into the mainspace. — Hunter Kahn 23:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Litigation/recount heading

Hi; re the Miller litigation, "recount" wouldn't be an apt heading. They aren't recounting the write-in votes; they haven't yet been counted in the first place. They counted the ballots before (without checking the names), so it's a little ambiguous what we could call the current process, but it can't really be called a recount insofar as what are now being counted (votes) haven't been counted before.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Policy for elections

This is getting really tiring having to fight these guys off of every single elections page... We need to get some sort of set-in-stone polity up for proposal soon, since none of them respect the 5% rule, and we obviously can't work this on a page-by-page basis. Any ideas? Toa Nidhiki05 20:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Specter/Sestak article

Respectfully, I wish you had not gone ahead and created the article, or at least had asked me first. Partially because I am nearly finished, but wanted to wait until I was entirely finished before I moved it into the mainspace. But mainly, I've done a lot of edits (78, to be exact) on the article currently in my sandbox, which I planned to move to the main article when I was finished, that way the article history would be preserved. I've made various cuts and changes along the way, and if the history had been preserved, those edits would be documented in the history so anybody could check back on the old content if need be. As it stands now, I'll probably just end up having to delete my sandbox page, which will destroy the article history and destroy those edits from my own edit count. Not a big deal, but still... — Hunter Kahn 01:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• Actually, would you mind if I asked an administrator to delete the current mainstream page, then allow move my sandbox page into it? In other words, delete this and replace it with this? The content would be the same, but this way the article history would be preserved. Let me know if you're cool with it. — Hunter Kahn 01:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Perfect. I much appreciate it, Jerzeykydd! I was probably overly worried about it in the first place, but I feel a lot more comfortable having that article history preserved. Thanks again for setting it all up! By the way, do you review GAN articles? Because I plan on nominating this bad boy for GA when I'm finished (which should be within the week) and given your interest in this and in election articles, you'd be the perfect reviewer if you're interested... — Hunter Kahn 01:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
    • You certainly don't have to do it, it'll get reviewed by somebody else at some point, and I'm not ready to nominate it yet anyway. I just didn't know if you were a regular GAN reviewer or not. :) — Hunter Kahn 01:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Chris Coons Senate pic.jpg

Hi, I nominated the image for deletion because it is not a work of the federal government but Coons' campaign and there is no other evidence it is available under a free license. Please make sure to always check image copyright and don't assume every portrait of a federal government employee (Coons wasn't when this was shot) is free. Hekerui (talk) 00:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The same is true for File:Tom Graves.jpg. Hekerui (talk) 01:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jerzeykydd, you need to provide evidence that something was released in the public domain. I couldn't find any in the source links. The Tom Graves page clearly states "Copyright ©2009-2010 Graves for Congress". Simply linking the template is not good enough. You seem to assume that a portrait used by a Congressperson on his/her website is "official" and therefore released in the public domain - this is false. And please don't warning-template my talk page, the Tom Clements source image lacks evidence of permission and the derivative work does too - the remedy is providing evidence these images are free. Regards Hekerui (talk) 01:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

No, they are not automatically free. To be in the public domain as federal government work they must be taken by a federal government employee during the course of the person's official duties. For example File:Neil Abercrombie, 109th Pictorial photo.jpg is a work of the federal government and listed in the Congressional Pictorial Directory. The two images of Coons and Graves are campaign images and cannot be assumend to be free. Both will surely get official Congress images soon because they will start working soon (well, Coons already is). To get copyrighted images released we have to ask the copyright holder. For example, I asked a candidate for New York State Senate named Andrew Russo to release an image for his Wiki page under a specific free license, he agreed, I uploaded the image to File:Andrew Russo portrait.jpg, and he sent a "Declaration of consent for all enquiries" to state that he understood the terms of the license and to prove he had given permission. It's work but often successful. Best wishes Hekerui (talk) 01:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

November 2010

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made to User talk:Ronhjones has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

"Ownership"

Jerzeykydd, I might take your "ownership" warning if you hadn't been blocked for edit-warring and issuing personal attacks against me. I'd appreciate if you left the serious issues to uninvolved editors.--TM 15:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

It is very inappropriate to revert an editor on their own talk page. I have reported this disruptive behavior back to the admin who blocked you before. [1]--TM 15:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Sestak/Specter again

Hey Jerzeykydd! Just so you know, I've finished the work I'd hoped to do on United States Senate Democratic primary election in Pennsylvania, 2010, and I've nominated it for GAN. Although I know you don't review good article nominations, I'd definitely encourage you to take a gander at the article if you don't mind and make sure there aren't any major items that need to be fixed or changed. Also, I'd encourage you to take a look at a discussion that has been stated on the talk page and weigh in there, if you don't mind. And, last but not least, I made some changes to the main election article that I felt better embodied the entire primary, so if you wanted to take a look at that, feel free. Thanks much, Jerzeykydd, and thanks again for all your help along the way! — Hunter Kahn 20:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Done. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 01:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Morgan Griffith

You've been doing this for a long time. What is the procedure to follow when the politician's staff keep sanitizing the page to remove voting history they dislike? Cadwallader (talk) 15:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Why did you remove the following text, as per this diff? Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 01:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

On civil rights, Griffith voted for a law prohibiting mandatory microchip implants in humans, but also voted to require all girls entering the 6th grade to have an HPV Vaccine, which was later reportedly found to potentially cause an increase in birth defects and other serious adverse reactions.

Griffith has voted to allow the Commonwealth of Virginia to enforce federal immigration laws to criminalize knowingly employing illegal immigrants or undocumented workers, and also voted to criminalize possession of firearms by illegal aliens.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with File:Dino Rossi.jpg. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I am semi-retired

I am not interested in wasting any more of my time re-explaining to you what an encyclopedia is and isn't, so please leave my Talk page alone. I am semi-retired now, thanks to you, InaMaka and Tracer9999 - I have ZERO INTEREST in working on the U.S. Congress and elections projects when the Admins think what the three of you are doing to Wikipedia doesn't matter. Based on the similarities of your 'techniques', the three of you may be in some group together, or even be the same person, but I honestly don't care who any of you are or what any of you do. Just leave me alone. If you're determined to create five-second cut-and-paste orphan articles for your favorite candidates to keep our readers away from all the other articles, go ahead. If you're determined to load up the articles of candidates you don't like with scads of POV election trivia, go ahead. If you're determined to label some candidates 'major' and 'minor', and then delete all the 'minor' ones, go ahead. Ignore all the Secretary of State official lists - what do they know? Who cares? Why should our readers get actual facts, when you're more than happy to mislead them? You just keep rewriting history until it's to your liking. Ignore the purpose of an encyclopedia. Do whatever you like. Keep on editing articles as if government elections are just another sports game, and you have some sort of 'right' to do whatever you think might help your team. I find that totally disgusting and un-American, but you go right ahead. I'm certainly no longer interested in trying to stop you. I'm sure you're very, very proud of yourself for pretending you want to 'engage' in some sort of 'dialogue' with me, but we've been there, done that, and you always go right back to your usual 'work'. I'm through. Flatterworld (talk) 01:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

PRODs adjusted

I came across a dozen or so places where you PROD'd things today with an October 5th timestamp. I've corrected the ten or so articles I could find, try and be careful of that in the future, they were instantly marked as expired proposed deletions when you did that, thanks! Also, I've declined one but have no problem with you taking it to AfD or DRV, as it was the subject of a previous AfD. Have a great day! --j⚛e decker^talk 17:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Block

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for attempting to harass other users. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Jerzeykydd (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was not trying to harass him. I was warning Namiba of breaking wikipedia rules.Jerzeykydd (talk) 01:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Well you warned to leave him alone. You didn't and you got blocked for it. you can't say fairer than that. A month may be a little long, but maybe if you were to offer BWilkins some assurances that you really will leave him alone in future, he might be inclined to reduce the length. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

In this thread you were warned to leave Namiba alone, permanently. You were advised - and SAW - "if you need to message each other re:rules, ask an admin to do it directly". This was a clear breach of that. As such, the harassment is now stopped for at least a month. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 01:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

When did you say "if you need to message each other re:rules, ask an admin to do it directly"?--Jerzeykydd (talk) 01:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Um, in that thread. Read the whole thread again. You replied to it the first time, so you read it at least once. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 01:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I missed the part about "if you need to message each other re:rules, ask an admin to do it directly." In addition, I didn't know you wanted me to stay off permanently. After a week or two, I thought it would be ok to warn Namiba of how he was breaking wikipedia rules. I'm sorry. The one month ban is very harsh. I love editing wikipedia and I make contributive edits everyday.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 01:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Which part of "You have both been advised now, and any future interactions on each other's talkpage will lead to escalation to me" was the most challenging? The words "any future interactions" appears pretty straightforward and clearly non-optional. The 1 month block (not ban) is due to the similar instances on your block log, the last month-long one reduced due to your promise to behave in the future ... how's that working out for you? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I think Jerzeykydd is pretty lucky that it's only a month. You also violated your 1RR restriction, editing on Massachusetts gubernatorial election, 2010. Toddst1 (talk) 13:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

No, I edited that page twice in 24 hours, and only one of them was a revert.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 16:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

No. That was TWO reverts - see definition at [[WP:3RR] - A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part - you removed data placed by someone else - that is a revert, then you did it again 21 minutes later. Had you placed fresh content - then that would just be an edit, but you did not.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thanks for the Barnstar. BTW, I don't agree with you block at all; this is the inclusionists open attempt at censorship. Toa Nidhiki05 22:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the barnstar, Jerzeykydd! And thanks for help along the way on the Democratic primary article! I hope to be done soon(ish) on the main article too. — Hunter Kahn 21:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Jerzeykydd for the barnstar award! I'll keep improving on other county results when I have some free time. --Kihiu (talk) 15:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Tomclements cropped.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Tomclements cropped.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 21:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Alaska gubernatorial election, 1998, Fair Use

Hi. I have again removed a file from this article, which you restored in May. If you don't understand the reason for the removal of an image, it may be a good idea to investigate further rather than presuming that the person who removed it had no legit reason. You can read what "FUR" means here. In short, if a picture is not properly licensed, it can only be displayed in individual articles if a valid "fair use rationale" (or FUR) is provided for each article. This image does not have a FUR for this article and never has; it is unlikely that a valid FUR is possible under our non-free content guidelines. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject United States

Hello, Jerzeykydd/Sept10-Dec10! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Free images

I noticed you have been uploading free images of American politicians - if you wouldn't mind, would you consider uploading them directly to Wikimedia Commons? They have to be moved there eventually, it saves everyone a lot of work if they're just uploaded there straightaway. I just moved over the photo of Kristi Noem. Kelly ^hi! 01:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

It's one of the speedy deletion criteria - Commons is the free media repository for all the various projects, so I guess there's no sense in maintaining multiple copies of the same media on multiple projects. See Wikipedia:Moving files to the Commons. Don't know how familiar you are with Commons, let me know if you have any questions. The upload process there is pretty much exactly the same as it is here, and images are used in articles in the exact same way. Your single-user-login should work there no problem. Kelly ^hi! 02:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, absolutely not! Thanks for finding and uploading the images! They'll eventually be moved over to the Commons and will continue to be used here and other projects. I was just asking if you would mind uploading them straight to Commons in the future to save some work for other folks. Kelly ^hi! 02:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I should have been more clear - they only get deleted locally when a good copy exists on the Commons. So they're not really "deleted", they're just moved to make them more widely available. Kelly ^hi! 02:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

You should take care not to upload copyright violations - not every image on a Congress website is free. Take File:David Cicilline.jpg, which you uploaded as free federal government work - it's actually an old photo and not federal government work. Those images with a blue background look fine, as they were taken in this Congress. Again, please be careful, copyright is a serious issue. Hekerui (talk) 09:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The Wikipedia image use policy states: "Always specify on the description page where the image came from (the source) and information on how this could be verified." Images used on federal government websites are not automatically free, and your speculation is not evidence - the blue background images were taken after the people were sworn in, so at least one can make a case - this image has been used at least since February last year. You can write the copyright holder, asking him/her to release an image, but please do not upload images claiming images hosted on federal government servers are automatically free. There is a discussion on this here. Hekerui (talk) 17:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Please do not remove file deletion tags from file description pages on Wikipedia, as you did to File:David Cicilline.jpg, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Hekerui (talk) 17:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jerzeykydd. You have new messages at Muboshgu's talk page.
Message added 23:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

U.S.government

I thought you might cool off after the election, but apparently you haven't. I'm sorry you detest the Untied States so much you are determined to trivialize everyone in Congress, pretending the only thing they do is run for office and get involved in 'controversies'. Obviously we don't take articles about people in business and fill them up with coverage of their job interviews, or go on endlessly about what they do or say, as opposed to what they do in their job - because their job is what makes them notable which is why that is, and should be, the focus. We are an encyclopedia, not a tabloid, as I've reminded you many times. I don't know what country you're from, or why exactly you are so determined to do sabotage articles about U.S. government figures, but I don't really care. I've tried to help you in the past, but obviously you've made your choice to be destructive on purpose and it isn't from a lack of knowledge or understanding. Actions speak louder than words. Flatterworld (talk) 02:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Mass reversion of Flatterworld's edits

You are using WP:TW-based rollback to undo the work of Flatterworld (talk · contribs) on almost two dozen articles. You've been blocked for harassing other editors before and it appears that you are now harassing Flatterworld. Please discuss mass reversions like this before instituting them unilaterally. Continued stalking of other editors may find you blocked and/or losing privileges. Toddst1 (talk) 13:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

As you pointed out, you are edit warring, not harassing. Toddst1 (talk) 00:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Which he's still doing, as he refuses to abide by any consensus he doesn't happen to personally agree with. His latest 'bit' is to claim the Cato Institute is part of the Missouri Legislature! But hey Todsdst1 - you just keep encouraging him to keep on 'improving' these articles. Flatterworld (talk) 05:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Diffs? Toddst1 (talk) 06:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Macaca

Thanks for your comments. There is a question pending for you at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Macaca_(term) As the only objector, it would be great if you could weigh in on what you meant. Ratagonia (talk) 20:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Unexplained revert

Why did you revert me? Unless it's vandalism, you're supposed to give a reason in the edit summary for reverting. Victor Victoria (talk) 18:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

US National Archives collaboration

United States National Archives WikiProject

Would you like to help improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to the National Archives and its incredible collection? This summer, the National Archives—which houses some of America's most important historical documents—is hosting me as its Wikipedian in Residence, and I have created WP:NARA to launch these efforts. There are all sorts of tasks available for any type of editor, whether you're a writer, organizer, gnome, coder, or image guru. The National Archives is making its resources available to Wikipedia, so help us forge this important relationship! Please sign up and introduce yourself. Dominic·t 15:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Rick Perry

An article split like this really needs discussion first. I've raised the issue at Talk:Rick Perry, changed the new title into a redirect and restored the old material. Please take this to the talk page. It also lost all the contribution history and the new article was technically copyvio. Dougweller (talk) 09:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

September 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States

The September 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumioko (talk) 21:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

United States Senate election in Indiana, 2012

[2] Why? WHY is a declined section necessary? Is the reader too stupid to assume that anyone not listed as running simply isn't running? If they said they'd run but then dropped out, they could be listed, but these people were NEVER involved in this race. So they may be prominant Indiana politicians, but they have nothing to do with this election. What about Evan Bayh, Mike Pence (could have run, but is instead running for governor), John Gregg, (could have run, but is instead running for governor), Gov. Mitch Daniels, every Congressman, every Indiana state senator and representative who could have run? They are simply not relevant to this race. The fact that they responsed No to a reporter's question - or simply said abosolutely nothing about it or decided to run for another office - doesn't mean they need to included here. I especially have a problem with the inclusion of Jackie Walorski. She ran for Congress last year and lost. Guess what? She's running for the same seat again, never having considered runnng for Senate against a powerful incumbent, nor did anyone else actually think she would. And the source for Baron Hill says that he wouldn't run for Governor, not Senate. Really, it's only common sense that if they aren't running or still thinking about it, then they aren't running, just like the other couple hundred Hoosier politicians and millions of Hoosiers! There is absolutely no reason to include them unless there was extensive asumptions that they would run, or they were really getting into it but later declined. You may claim that politicians are fickle and can change their minds: other than the fact that it's absurdly unlikely at this point, we can just add them back at any time! Reywas92^Talk 21:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Jerzeykydd/Sept10-Dec10! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Thanks

for merging all of the new "political positions and votes" sections into "tenure." i had been meaning to go in and clean that up myself and was quite pleased to see you'd already taken care of it. cheers! Arbor8 (talk) 16:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but such changes should be discussed within the Project. Making mass changes to hundreds of articles without Project discussion is very disrespectful to others. 75.60.16.144 (talk) 04:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

There was nothing wrong with Jerzeykydd's edits. The Wiki project you refer to isn't official policy, and he doesn't need permission from the group to make valid edits. Thanks. Arbor8 (talk) 17:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Unless you're against collaboration, the keystone of contributing to Wikipedia, I suggest you read Wikipedia:WikiProject before you embarrass yourself further. Your attitude is indeed shocking and saying "thanks" at the end of your off the mark statements is insulting. Do you really believe thetwo of you are so special you can delete everyone else's work with o discussion necessary? What gigantic egos both of you have! 99.50.190.206 (talk) 01:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Great job

You are doing a bang up job on local elections and politicians. I would like to encourage you to nominate your new articles for WP:DYK. It's a fun way to get recognition for your efforts. I also noticed your a member of WP:USA. You may also want to consider another great group of editors, which has some overlap with USA: [3]. TTFN– Lionel ^(talk) 09:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Members of Congress

There is a Project for members of Congress, and everyone working on these articles is expected to follow the agreed-upon guidelines. Collaboration means that even if you're convinced everyone else is wrong and you're right, the correct procedure is to propose your changes to the Project members, discuss them, and then accept whatever the consensus is. Going your own way on election coverage in these articles, particularly when the articles were previously in compliance, is not being Wikipedian, and is very disrespectful to everyone else trying to work together. I know you contribute a lot of your time, but this is supposed to be a team project. 75.60.16.144 (talk) 04:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks like I will have to check this out too. I did not realize there were such firm guidelines. With respect to your note regarding placement of the pledge, I see on one article:

===Tenure===
;Political positions

Would placement in that way be OK? Although I'm likely to make a subsection rather than use the semi-colon. User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The Members of Congress wiki project is in the brainstorming phase; there aren't any firm guidelines. That said, it is a good project and I think member bios could benefit from some more uniformity.Arbor8 (talk) 21:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Lamar S. Smith

Just so you know, you seem to be in the middle of a vandal war on Lamar S. Smith. I hope I haven't trampled any of your edits. Cheers, Jim1138 (talk) 06:05, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Reverting my edit to Solomon P. Ortiz

I notice that you reverted my edit to Solomon P. Ortiz, with the edit summary "Not necessary". I had removed the list of committee assignments since he no longer serves in the House. I would be interested to hear your rationale for adding them back. After all, Ortiz no longer serves on any of the committees listed and he is not chairman of the Armed Forces subcommittee on Readiness (which the article currently states he is). If your rationale is to record which committees he served on while he was a congressman, the list needs to be changed dramatically. Indeed, the only committees listed are those he served on in the 111th Congress, whereas over the course of his 18 years in Congress he's served on many others. I look forward to hearing your thoughts. --Lincolnite (talk) 16:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Tenure

How about this? User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In Cliff Stearns, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Woodrow Wilson High School (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. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line 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) 10:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States

The December 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumioko (talk) 03:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In United States Senate election in Utah, 1992, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Bob Bennett (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) 13:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Cary Capparelli

Hi. Re. Cary Capparelli - you merged that (redirected it) to the election article; someone questioned it, so I've undone the redir for the time being, and started a discussion on Talk:Cary Capparelli.

I hope you don't mind me undoing it; I was just trying to help sort it out. Please see Talk:Cary Capparelli#Merger. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  09:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links 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.

Clark Hall (politician) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link to Medicare

Leonard L. Bembry (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link to NRA

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, 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.

Jim Jontz (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to North Central High School

Tim Manchin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to City National Bank

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Sean Duffy

Hi. The Wisconsin Rapids Tribune link that you used as a citation for the assertion you added to the Sean Duffy article regarding his 91% party voting record does not work. Since there is an additional citation for that passage at the end of it, I removed the dead one. In addition, you did not include a citation for the assertion about his opposition to the Davis-Bacon Act repeal. In the future, always remember to include such citations. Fortunately, I did a search, and found that one of the sources you did add to the article, the Marshfield News Herald, also supports that passage, so I added a citation to the end of the passage rather than remove it. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 19:00, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Hawaii GOP Primary

This editor continues to insert non-reputable sources for his own self-promotion. Could you please review this: [4], and weigh in. It seems other editors have agreed per past edits, but I suppose that's not enough. Thanks man, America69 (talk) 18:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)