Closeclouds

August 2018

Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism, such as the edit at United States elections, 2018, are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage editors. Please see what is not vandalism for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 05:00, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions Notification - American Politics

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:21, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Incumbent

If you'd like, I'll cite the claim that she is an incumbent to her official US Senate page. See WP:BLUE; not everything needs to be cited. 331dot (talk) 13:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

You can also Google "Susan Collins 2020" for numerous sources that clearly assume that she is running again, as most incumbent elected officials want to do. 331dot (talk) 13:30, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, cite the claim. Convention or tradition are meangingless. They're not policy or consensus. Closeclouds (talk) 02:12, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Convention is not meaningless. Neither is WP:COMMONSENSE. We don't cite that the sky is blue. 331dot (talk) 02:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

That's not the same thing as assuming that every incumbent is going to run. Many don't. Closeclouds (talk) 02:57, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

But the majority do. And reliable sources and the public assume that until they hear differently, google as i suggest above. I've seen Wikipedia articles do this for years and not just for US politicians. 331dot (talk) 03:08, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree with 331dot. As a matter of convention, incumbents who are eligible for reelection are presumed potential candidates for reelection simply because of incumbency. Not everything needs to be cited. If you disagree, please take it to the talk page and get a consensus. --Vrivasfl (talk) 20:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

You all are the ones violating policy based on some unspoken unwritten convention. Therefore, you all need to get consensus. I don't, because I'm upholding policy. You are violating policy. Get consensus or change the policy. Or provide a link to some old talk page that already has consensus on this. Closeclouds (talk) 03:00, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Please read WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:BLUE. 331dot (talk) 03:08, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Please get consensus for changes you want to make. Closeclouds (talk) 03:10, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Anyway, neither of those apply. Many incumbents don't run. It's not common sense to assume they will. Closeclouds (talk) 03:12, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

They don't not apply because they don't say what you want them to. You are the one who wants to make a change, so you need to get the consensus. Incumbents wanting to keep their jobs is common sense and widely assumed in and out of Wikipecia. 331dot (talk) 03:14, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

December 2018

Hello, I'm Philipnelson99. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Philipnelson99 (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

List of longest non royal leaders

I saw your revert [1], but why did you add a non-politician in a list of politicians? Everyone else there was a prime minister or president for decades. Gaddafi is neither. Whatever is written there as justification constitutes WP:OR and without academic sources we should not be considering such WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims. desmay (talk) 00:03, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Gadhafi was the ruler of the country. Closeclouds (talk) 00:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

He was a Colonel which is a military post, not a post of a "ruler", which can be either "president" or "prime minister". Please as we have asked, provide academic sources and not depend on your personal opinion contrary to WP:OR. Please self-revert this. desmay (talk) 15:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

No. Don't be obtuse. His title may have been colonel, but he was Libya's dictator for over 40 years. To claim otherwise is extremely silly. Closeclouds (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Read WP:NPA. What is a "dictator"? A person can refer his teacher or parents as a "dictator" too, but what we always need factual basis and reliable sources to backup such assertions. Read WP:CIR too and don't revert until you fulfill requirement stated by Desmay. We rely on reliable references not your personal feelings. 101.50.127.160 (talk) 09:57, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Get consensus on the article's talk page. Closeclouds (talk) 18:55, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Read WP:STONEWALLING. Your source makes no mention of of being a "longest-ruling non-royal national leaders since 1900". Read WP:OR. desmay (talk) 17:52, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• Don't revert on List of longest-ruling non-royal national leaders since 1900 anymore because your edits have been already reverted by 2 editors. I would recommend you to drop WP:STICK here since your argument makes zero sense. ~~

No, you have used an IP address to revert. You need to gain consensus on the article's talk page to get the change that you want. You need to not ignore reliable sources. You need to stop edit warring. I have made an honest attempt at consensus, you haven't. Closeclouds (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

File an SPI if you think people from different worlds are same though. I see you are a new editor who is certainly familiar with playing deceptive tricks. You have not provided any reliable source which supports your dishonest claim of "longest-ruling non-royal national leaders since 1900". Misrepresenting sources wont help. You don't have consensus for your edits. I will report if you reverted anytime again. desmay (talk) 20:19, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)