User talk:KlayCax/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Internationally isolated

Your slow edit warring on this is disruptive. I suggest you self revert. Selfstudier (talk) 19:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi! I responded on the Israeli-Gaza War talk page. @Drsruli:, @PrimaPrime:, @BilledMammal:, @Borgenland:, and others, including me, have also objected to the wording. (CNN also says it's geographical: Some of this explains the continued strong Western support for Israel – which has now largely become reflexive) Multiple sources dispute the claim that Israel is militarily isolated. How could they be if multiple great powers are sending them weapons? (Germany, UK, and the US, amid other countries.)

Want to find consensus on this with the above, you, and @Makeandtoss:. Thanks! Let's discuss on there. Worst case comes to past, we can start a RFC over it, although I can revert (if needed) for the time being. KlayCax (talk) 19:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

No problem.. and quit the canvassing. Selfstudier (talk) 19:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Responded on other page. And thanks. KlayCax (talk) 20:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Now this diff is straight up edit warring to disruptively impose your personal POV. Kindly self revert, thank you. Selfstudier (talk) 09:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Just so we are quite clear when this started, 5 February was your removal of

"Israel and the United States were internationally isolated amid global calls for a ceasefire,[124][125][126] with the latter vetoing multiple proposals for one at the UN Security Council,[127][128][129]" (material + 6 sources) with the following edit summary:

"Per concerns on talk. The "increasing isolation" seems to be referring to resolutions at the United Nations Security Council regarding a ceasefire - which is already stated in the article - rather than geopolitical isolation. (Which is obviously ridiculous in terms of the U.S.) Sharply declining international approval for Israel is notable. Mentioning the U.K., Germany, or U.S. seems pretty debatable. Writing more on the talk page."

The first three removed sources all stated, with a quote given, "internationally isolated" as regards the US. Selfstudier (talk) 10:41, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

A neurologist or a urologist?

I notice that you added to your user page that you were "an urologist in residency", which surprised me because I thought urologists agreed that the first sound in urology was /j/? -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 23:16, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

December 2023

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for edit warring, violating enforced BRD after multiple blocks for edit warring on the page Joe Biden, you have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 1 month. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:22, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

1 month is a bit harsh for this issue don't you think? I think 1 week might have been appropriate. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I recently reported KlayCax for canvassing, and I guess the report went unnoticed by admins? KC has a history of disruptive behavior, including edit warring (which they have been blocked for before). If anything, I do not think 1 month is long enough. Prcc27 (talk) 16:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

When I click on "User logs" and it shows me nothing for KlayCax. Why is that? I select "User logs" on the hyperlink in the column to the right of this textbox, but when I select "block log" it does not show me any history of blocks for KlayCax. Supposedly they are blocked now even, but I do not see it, or i do not know how to properly check someone's block history. What am I doing incorrectly? Iljhgtn (talk) 03:54, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Iljhgtn, the way you're doing it will show you what block actions KlayCax has performed, which is none, since they are not an admin. You would want to clear the Performer field and put "User:KlayCax" in the Target field. Getting to someone's block log is more easily done via the link at the top of their contributions page. Navigation pop-ups also make it easy. If you have follow-up questions, you're welcome at my user talk. This is getting a bit off-topic for KC's. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:11, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 February 2024

Hi. This addition seems contradicted by the Pentagon according to the same source: The Pentagon quickly issued a clarification that Austin was “citing an estimate from the Hamas-controlled health ministry that more than 25,000 total Palestinians have been killed in Gaza.” It looks like he said over 25,000 Palestinians in total were killed, not women and children. We could add this clarification as well, but is Austin's supposed declaration appropriate for lede in the first place? ThanksVugarmamadov (talk) 23:00, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Did you mean to post this on the article's talk page? I'm just an editor who contributed on it. Thanks. KlayCax (talk) 12:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Could you please fix this mess?

This is just horrible beyond words, not even English: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israel&diff=prev&oldid=1213871590&title=Israel&diffonly=1

This is extremely redundant and silly: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israel&diff=prev&oldid=1213892014&title=Israel&diffonly=1

Sometimes I think they do it on purpose. You are always the voice of sanity. Sorry for bothering you. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.9.122.76 (talk) 19:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Where is the consensus on write-in candidates?

You've said on multiple state pages that there is "clear consensus on 2024 United States election talk page to include Kennedy in states that he has write-in or direct ballot access on."

Is that true though? I'm looking at Talk:2024 United States elections and not seeing anything of the sort. Not being snarky, just curious where that consensus is. Woko Sapien (talk) 17:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Hey, @Woko Sapien:.

That was a typo. :) The link is here. There's a general agreement that candidates (including RFK) should be added in places if they: 1.) Poll over 5% 2.) Have ballot access. KlayCax (talk) 17:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Ah, understood! I was terribly confused there for a while. Woko Sapien (talk) 18:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

No, you're good! Don't worry. It's my fault for not being specific, @Woko Sapien: and not explaining in greater detail. KlayCax (talk) 18:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Your closing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where is Kate? (3rd nomination)

As you might be aware, your attempt to close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where is Kate? (3rd nomination) was reverted by Silver seren with the edit summary this is not an AfD where non-admin closure is appropriate.

Seconding that sentiment, I wanted to draw your attention to WP:BADNAC, which states:

A non-admin closure is not appropriate in any of the following situations: ...

2. The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial.
3. The non-admin has little or no experience editing Wikipedia generally or has little or no previous participation in discussions.

I notice you have fairly limited experience at AfD, so while the enthusiasm to help AfDs is very welcome, it might be worth sticking around to gain some experience by participating in AfD discussions before attempting to closure future AfDs.

Finally, per WP:EARLY, note that deletion discussions usually close after seven days. Your attempted close was after six days, and none of the conditions for an early close applied. Thanks, and happy editing! IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 21:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Persecution of First Nations

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Persecution of First Nations 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, a group of people, an individual animal, an organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content, or an organized event that does not credibly 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 read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 04:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Ethnic Cleansing and the Indian moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Ethnic Cleansing and the Indian. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 08:08, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Gary Clayton Anderson

Hi KlayCax, I have moved this article to Draft:Gary Clayton Anderson to allow you to add secondary sources such as media coverage demonstrating that the subject meets notability requirements for biographies. Thanks. AusLondonder (talk) 08:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Jeffrey Ostler moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Jeffrey Ostler. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and there's no indication that this person passes WP:NPROF – h-index is 6 according to Scopus. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Minimizing disruption

It has been drawn to my attention that you have a strong tendency to create RfCs when your bold actions are rejected. You have done this recently on Native American genocide in the United States. Seven people out of the seven who have responded have opposed your proposal. Would you consider closing your own request, per WP:SNOW? Thank you for your consideration for others' time. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 12:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. While I believe normally the language is something like "withdrawn by proposer" rather than "self-close", this is appreciated. KC vs. 8 people is indeed WP:1AM. Maybe you could go for a walk for a while or focus on one of the pages you think should be more strongly worded ? -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 00:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I removed it per WP: SNOW.

However, wanted to note that editors such as @ARoseWolf: were open to alternative names. So something like Settler colonialism in the United States would work. Also reached out to @Hydrangeans: for cooperation on Discord. Do you personally think there's a trend of whitewashing Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, and the opposite for the United States, even if we disagree on what the article should be titled? It's been a repeated theme I've noticed on articles (compare Australian history wars to it; or, Indigenous peoples in Canada v. Native Americans in the United States) and seems obvious. Even if we disagree with what should be done: there's an apparent majority that the status quo is untenable. KlayCax (talk) 02:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

May 2024

Your recent editing history at April 2024 Israel–Hamas war protests on university campuses in the United States shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then 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 being blocked from editing—especially as the page in question is currently under restrictions from the Arbitration Committee, if you violate the one-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than one revert on a single page with active Arbitration Committee restrictions 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 one-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the one-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Your two reverts today, meaning you've already breached WP:1RR:

1. Special:Diff/1221788973 (revert of Special:Diff/1221788303)
2. Special:Diff/1221790129 (revert of Special:Diff/1221789884)

Sincerely —Alalch E. 01:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Draft:American history wars

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. A page you recently created, American history wars, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new pages, so it has been moved to Draft:American history wars where you can continue to work on it. Please consider using the Article Wizard or the Articles for Creation procedure. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read "Your first article". You may also want to read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thanks for creating this page! I do not believe the sourcing does not support this concept as sufficiently notable for a standalone page, but it could with work and review. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Editing against consensus at Israel-Hamas war, POV issues

In this edit you added various names to the lede. Doing so has been rejected by consensus. In addition, you added extremely POV names such as "Gaza holocaust". Please be more careful to adhere to NPOV in the future. BilledMammal (talk) 04:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Please Don't Edit War at National Front (UK)

Please don't edit war at National Front (UK), as you have done here: [1], [2]. Respect the WP:BOLD process and seek consensus for the changes you wish to make, rather than edit warring - something you have clearly been sanctioned for in the past. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Black War

Hello there

I reverted you recent edits to this article because there is an ongoing discussion of these issues on the Talk page and you have no consensus for these changes. Please engage in the Talk discussion and seek consensus for you proposed changes. Happy to discuss on Talk pages. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

UK Religion Pie Chart

Hi, just wanted to let you know that I removed the pie chart in Religion in the United Kingdom. Thanks for trying to help out the situation, but the discussion on the talk page was about coming up with an accurate chart, or removing the chart and allow the data in the article to suffice. Unfortunately, the old chart that you put back, was completely off and did not match the cited data at ARDA [3]https://www.thearda.com/world-religion/national-profiles?u=233c.

I think that a pie chart in the lede is going to be a problem, for several reasons relating to scope. Anyway , if you want to come up with a pie chart for the lede section, then have at it, but it's going to need to have the data set well defined (scoped) and the data cited. But between you and I, I'd leave it to the article to be more detailed.

Regards  • Bobsd •  (talk) 06:58, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

The destination of the URL changed, @Bobsd:. Not sure if the original version is recoverable. However, I'm fine with any pie chart being excluded from the article's lead, at least until now.

It would seem to violate WP: SYNTH to merge together the 2021 census polling and the (heavily criticized) 2024 Scottish polling together. So that 2018 survey was the best I could find. KlayCax (talk) 22:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you and I agree. Too many ways to parse the data for it to fit into a single chart.  • Bobsd •  (talk) 16:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

June 2024

Hi KlayCax! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Genocide Joe several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Genocide Joe, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 04:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

June 2024

Hello, in this edit you reframed the introduction of Palestinian genocide accusation , an extremely sensitive topic to state: "There is a consensus in the international human rights legal community that the State of Israel has carried out or incited genocide against Palestinians during parts of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict." Your edit was based on a reference to a 'new Boston University statement,' which, upon review, appears to be a single report presented within an op-ed. This does not provide sufficient evidence to make such definitive statements in WP:VOICE. Let's try to ensure more rigorous sourcing and balanced coverage in the future. Thank you. ABHammad (talk) 19:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

It isn't a single report. Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention, University Network For Human Rights, and more have unanimously labeled the Israeli actions genocide.

University Network for Human Rights states that: The opposition is political, as there is consensus amongst the international human rights legal community, many other legal and political experts, including many Holocaust scholars, that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. The opposition is from Israel, which has never accepted claims that it has committed atrocities—claims which have been made for decades for its actions as an occupier of Palestinian territory—and repudiates charges of war crimes and genocide. Israel has almost unconditional backing from the United States, and has military and other support from the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, and a few other Western states. The United States and the United Kingdom have condemned claims of genocide against Israeli leaders, including the orders of the ICJ and the ICC seeking arrest warrants. WP: NPOV does not mean equal weight. Particularly on questions of genocide, @ABHammad:. Consensus seems clear.

This wouldn't be the case in, say, October. But a lot has changed in the meantime. KlayCax (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

June 2024 (4)

I've drawn attention to your deceptive edit summary on the talk page of National Rally. Please restore the text prior to your edit and explain on the talk page what you are citing to claim that the NR is one of only two major parties in France. (This is certainly not in the article given as the source.) Thank you. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 13:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

In reference to polling, @SashiRolls:. France has a winner-take-all system for legislative seats.

Similar sentiments can be found in other articles. For example:

In France, currently there are two major parties in the running, among others. The first is the ruling party, Renaissance(RE), or En Marche! as it was earlier known. The hold the majority in the National Assembly, France's lower house and the Senate... In opposition is Marine Le Pen and her party, National Rally, a.k.a. Rassemblement National(RN). RN is a right wing populist party that recently gained a large number of seats in the 2024 EU elections...

The Republicans are widely considered to be no longer a major force in French politics. Most of their lawmakers have left and joined either Renaissance or National Rally. KlayCax (talk) 21:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Similarly, most reliable sources say that the Socialist Party is no longer a major force either, and the French left is far too factionalized to describe any of theirs as "major". KlayCax (talk) 21:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Final warning

I want to make this perfectly clear so there are no surprises later. Next time I block you for edit warring it will be indefinite. I see some recent edit warring warnings, and I full protected a page because of an edit war you were part of, so I want you to know the stakes. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:52, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Read the context. The edit war context was for the Genocide Joe page. There wasn't an actual edit war. KlayCax (talk) 21:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I thought it should go through the normal AfD process. The full context is on the talk page here. The National Rally edits are explained above, ScottishFinnishRadish. (With source.) KlayCax (talk) 21:57, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

As you can see, there was only one reversion made, which isn't an edit war. It was JDiala who reinstated it, @ScottishFinnishRadish:. KlayCax (talk) 22:01, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Republican Party

Respectfully, this was not a wise move. There's being bold, but adding controversial labels (after vast discussion has taken place on such things) to an article designated a contentious topic shouldn't take place without consensus. — Czello ^(music) 14:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive edit warning - U.S. presidential election pages

You do realize you can be blocked for edit warring, even if it is outside of the 3RR, right? Your edit warring at 2024 United States presidential election in Oklahoma is disruptive, especially since it goes against consensus. We decided 4-3 against including Kennedy in the Utah article until he hits 3+ consistent polls at 5%+ average; why would the criterion be any different for Oklahoma? I will give you 24 hours to self-revert. Otherwise, I will likely seek intervention from an admin, whether that be implementing 1RR on the state articles, reporting you for disruptive editing and edit warring, or otherwise. You are part of the reason why 1RR had to be implemented on the main article, I hope we can work together to avoid having a repeat for the state articles. Also, pretty bizarre for you to add Cornell West to the Michigan infobox when he lacks ballot access and 5% polling, and you already know the consensus requires both. That is not “BOLD”, that is a deliberate disruption. Prcc27 (talk) 04:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Also, other users have already called you out for acting in “bad faith” and “POV”-pushing RFKJR into infoboxes [4]. Unfortunately it seems you have decided to ignore our warnings. I think a topic ban for you may be in order. Prcc27 (talk) 05:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• 1.) There was never a consensus for 3+ consistent polls at 5%+ average. Esolo5002 briefly suggested it. (If you add me into the count: it's 4-4. Which is a tie. Even if it was 4-3, that's not a "consensus") Note that GreatCaesarGhost stated in the thread what I'm stating now: This is why state level polling is a bad choice - you'll have him listed at some states and not others based on whether third party pollsters choose to poll a state, rather than any objective read on the state of the campaign.
• 2.) If you know anything about me, @Prcc27:, you know that I think that Kennedy is a fucking nut. I'm "passionate" about including him because there's clearly different standards being set on American and non-American articles.
• 3.) The Michigan edit was a WP: BOLD one and I can see how editors could disagree with it. However, both Jill Stein and Cornell West have polled above 5% in Michigan, with the first having officially certified ballot access, so inclusion isn't that ridiculous of a notion. (Many Social Democrats, Muslims, and more, which are overrepresented in Michigan, have extensively negative views of Biden's handling of the 2024 Israeli-Hamas war.)
• 4.) As you can see above: the "edit conflicts" were misunderstandings from other editors. I near exclusively edit on controversial topics. So it's not surprising that my wall is debates over my edits/wording.

I'll revert my edit on the Oklahoma article in the meantime and discuss it on there. Since I know we're traditionally had a pretty adversarial relationship with one another and I don't want that. My intention with my edits isn't to edit war or to annoy you. It's just because we have fundamental disagreements over how Wikipedia should cover several respective topics. I'll message you on the Oklahoma talk page now so we can work something out, @Prcc27:. Thank you! KlayCax (talk) 01:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

1. I did include you in the 4-3, I’m pretty sure. But regardless, the onus for consensus is on those seeking to include something. By default, RFKJR, et al. should be left out of the infobox, until there is a clear consensus.
2. I do not disbelieve that you are not a fan of RFKJR, but you do seem to be pushing third party candidates as a whole. As much as I would love for third party candidates to get more attention, it is not Wikipedia’s place to promote them unduly. Especially when we already agreed on a inclusion criteria on when we should include them.
3. Is Cornell West *averaging* 5%? If having one 5% poll was the threshold, the infobox could get quite crowded with minor candidates that have virtually no shot at actually winning 5%. Regardless, you have been told multiple times that ballot access is required for inclusion. No excuse.
4. No misunderstanding. You created a duplicate discussion at the talk page to push hard for RFKJr, and you have repeatedly added him and others to the infobox without consensus. The next time you add a candidate to the infobox without consensus, I will be making a report to an admin. I would also advise against acting “boldly” on infoboxes in the future.

Prcc27 (talk) 05:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

@Prcc27 The area is designated as a contentious topic and KlayCax has had an alert, so it would be an Arbitration Enforcement issue - possibly under the AP topic area as well Doug Weller talk 06:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! Arbitration Enforcement will be the next step then, if this kind of editing continues. Prcc27 (talk) 12:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

@Prcc27:.

1.) By default, RFKJR, et al. should be left out of the infobox, until there is a clear consensus. There was a consensus to add candidates who were averaging 5% in polling and had official ballot access. Both applied to Kennedy here.

2.) Insofar that editors on the 2024 Mexican general election were "pushing" to have third-party candidate Jorge Máynez added. Mexico also has a first past the post election system, Máynez polled at the same numbers Kennedy did, and both candidates had similarly no chance of winning, so the proposal seems common sense to me, as even my compromise proposal has eligibility standards found nowhere else for candidates in other national infoboxes. Coverage isn't an endorsement.

3.) Is Cornell West *averaging* 5%? If having one 5% poll was the threshold, the infobox could get quite crowded with minor candidates that have virtually no shot at actually winning 5%. Yes, of the polls taken so far. At the very least: Jill Stein is averaging 5% and has official ballot access. This situation doesn't apply to any other state. So there's no risk of the infobox being overcrowded with minor candidates if we include one or both of them.

The next time you add a candidate to the infobox without consensus, I will be making a report to an admin. The consensus was polling with an average of 5% + official ballot access. Both applied here.

I would also advise against acting “boldly” on infoboxes in the future. This sort of vague threatening as a muzzling technique is uncalled for. None of my edits violated Wikipedia policy.

I've been entirely nice to you so I'm unsure what you have against me. (I've never written anything similar back to you.) And I honestly don't want to keep doing this on every article we mutually edit. KlayCax (talk) 15:13, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

1. Where was that consensus made..? As you already know, there was a discussion on Utah which seemed to lean in favor of an additional consistent polling criterion, and there was also this discussion which OP specifically said aggregates, but we never tackled whether to use aggregates, consistent polling, or just any polling in that section.
2. Nobody said you “endorse” RFKJR, but you are unduly pushing third party candidates in the infobox, in some cases even when they have no ballot access in the state.
3. Cornell West’s polling average in Michigan is below 5%; he only had one 6% poll in the state. And Jill Stein has not polled at 5% in MI at all. Do not gaslight me! Either way, you clearly knew that West does not have ballot access in the state, and you still pushed him in the infobox. I told you, you shouldn’t be bold in the infobox as advice and a courtesy, not a threat. When you are adding candidates that have less than 5% polling and no ballot access and you have already consistently been reverted for adding candidates that do not meet one or both requirements– that is disruptive editing, not BOLD editing. You are welcome to make edits that are actually compliant with WP:BOLD, but you never welcome to disrupt Wikipedia. Your confusion on what counts as “BOLD” can get you banned, and it is best to avoid making unilateral major changes to the infobox if you have already been reverted several times for similar edits.

Prcc27 (talk) 18:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

(Please see WP:CAREFUL.) Prcc27 (talk) 21:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

and there was also this discussion which OP specifically said aggregates. In terms of averages, yes, but that's far from a consensus. Even so: Kennedy surpassed that.

When you are adding candidates that have less than 5% polling and no ballot access Jill Stein has ballot access and was averaging 5% in the state, yes. You can see here that they gave it 8% among African-Americans voters and 5% among voters overall in Michigan. I don't think we're in danger of a similar situation or circumstance happening anywhere else. The edit was also a self-pronounced WP: BOLD one. Stein definitely meets the criteria. At the time, West was claiming ballot access in Michigan, although he seems to have walked that back. Both the polling statistics and ballot access were met at the time. (For Stein; and, briefly, it appeared, West.)

You can see the poll above, @Prcc27:. Polling was performed. However, it was listed on FiveThirtyEight at the time (nor the article) so I can see how you missed it. It was a miscommunication as you can see above.

Hope that makes sense. Thanks! KlayCax (talk) 13:41, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I literally can’t access that paywalled site. But based on the polls included in the actual Michigan Wikipedia article, West is well below 5% when you average all of the polls on our article. Jill Stein has zero 5%+ polls according to our Wikipedia article. Prcc27 (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

There's not been a discussion on what aggregation means in this context.

However, a candidate could go -> 1%, 3%, 2%, 1%, 2%, 1%, 1%, 2%, 1%, 2% |massive event happens|, 5%, 12% for instance and still be under 5% in both median and mode. KlayCax (talk) 12:31, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Or maybe the 12% poll would be an outlier..? That is why we take an average of several polls, so no one poll puts a candidate over the threshold. The point is, you knew the consensus, and ignored it. You know what an average or aggregate means; you’re not fooling anyone but yourself. I see no reason to proceed with this conversation any further, you have been warned, and next time you disrupt the presidential election articles, you will be reported. Simple. Prcc27 (talk) 17:50, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

The consensus you're talking about doesn't exist, @Prcc27:. Your consistent rudeness against me is unappreciated. KlayCax (talk) 11:04, 1 July 2024 (UTC)