User talk:JocularJellyfish/Archives/2017/June

This is an archive of User talk:JocularJellyfish. Please do not change it in any way. – JocularJellyfish ^Talk_Contribs 00:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC).

Re: Jon Tester

I noticed that you reverted my edit. You said that it was fine as it is, but by all indications Max Baucus retired but did not resign his seat. Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 22:05, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

@Dschslava:, Baucus resigned when he was appointed U.S. Ambassador to China by President Obama. JocularJellyfish (talk) 22:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

June 2017

Your recent editing history at Jon Tester shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ~ GB fan 22:52, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Revert of my edit on MOH recipients

I would recommend that before you post something to a article that you make sure that you post links to the article concerned. The post that I reverted appeared as a red link so I removed it. Referring to my edit as vandalism is in error; it was an honest mistake on my part because I was unaware of the award. I have reverted hundreds of instances of vandalism in my Wikipedia career and your post appeared to be a case of vandalism because your user page is a redlink and what you posted was a redlink. From observing the other posts on your talk page it appears that you sometimes operate fast and loose with Wikipedia standards. Although it isn't required I would recommend that you post a little something about yourself on your user page...people might take you a bit more seriously...or don't...it's your page. Cuprum17 (talk) 19:18, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Both of you need to look at the definition of vandalism. The edits to List of Medal of Honor recipients for the Vietnam War are not vandalism. Vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge. JocularJellyfish removing content is not necessarily vandalism and in this case the removal of an entry that was redlinked and unsourced was reasonable. Cuprum17 if you are basing vandalism off of the color of the link to someone's userpage you are absolutely wrong. Whether someone has a userpage makes no difference in the nature of the edit. Editor with blue linked userpages vandalize and editors with red linked usepages make good edits. You need to evaluate the edits on a case by case basis. Cuprum17 you also need to make sure your use of WP:ROLLBACK is correct. You rollbacked that edit and it wasn't vandalism. ~ GB fan 22:27, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

President vs. Speaker

Why do you think POTUS should be in the Speaker's infobox?—GoldRingChip 18:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@GoldRingChip:, It is existing precedent. Also, having the POTUS in the info box helps understand whether or not they had control of the house during each speakers' tenure. JocularJellyfish (talk) 19:11, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

The President is not pertinent to the Speaker of the House. I am not sure what existing precedent you are talking about. Is there a discussion where it was decided to list the President in the Speaker of the House section of Infoboxes? ~ GB fan 19:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I have started a discussion at Talk:Paul Ryan#Does the President belong under term of Speaker of the House. ~ GB fan 19:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

In that case, I will concede the discussion to you two and agree with the removal of the POTUS from the speaker infoboxes. JocularJellyfish (talk) 20:37, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Either way, "existing precedent" is a tough argument for reverting an edit. WP:BB!—GoldRingChip 21:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)