User talk:Globe Trekker

Did I change one of your contributions? Please let me know if I made an error or if you need any assistance. I'll try my best to help!
Please add section at the bottom of the page. Thanks!

A cup of tea for you!

With this ever dramatic world and winter coming, here's a cup of tea to alleviate your day! This e-tea's remains have been e-composted SwisterTwister talk 05:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Keep your filthy paws off my truthful, fact based edits you Hillary Clinton shill. The info I provided was released tonight by the U.S. State Department and made available to the public by Judicial Watch and House Oversight Committee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.44.123 (talk) 05:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I am a registered republican... TheCaliforniaKansan (talk) 06:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

3RR

Hi - Read your ANI report, and I don't think you quite understand WP:3RR. Allow me to assist. :-)

It's not a violation of 3RR to revert blanking a page, as the IP did in the Gun politics article, as that's considered vandalism and is an explicit exemption to 3RR.

It's also not a violation of 3RR to undo three edits in the manner you did if the effect is to take the page back to a single version. In other words, your three undos on the Gun law article had the effect of restoring a single previous version, like this. It's the same as if you had clicked here, then 'edit' and saved the page. You reverted once, not three times. The IP then reverted you, so he has two reverts: the first group of changes he did is considered his first revert for 3RR purposes.

If you had reverted the IP's revert of you, that would be your second revert. It's good you didn't participate in an edit war and that you brought him to ANI. I agree with Black Kite's handling of the matter - he beat me to protecting the Gun law page by about 15 seconds.

I'm going to leave a notice below this one that's strictly for your information, as I see you've got a lot of articles about politics and politicians listed on your user page. Politics around firearms are obviously part of American politics, so the IP will get this notice as well. You've done nothing wrong to date - it's simply an advisory.

Thanks for your contributions to the encyclopedia. If you have questions or need help, let me know. Oh...BOOMER! :-D Katie^talk 01:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

discretionary sanctions alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Katie^talk 01:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks From a Newcomer Award

A helping hand

Thanks! For showing someone new like me around and how Wikipedia works. Grant wikis 04:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)|}

Quick note to carefully check reversions

Hi. I know how easy it is to dismiss IP changes to articles as being vandalism, tests, etc... but please try to double-check to ensure that they're not constructive before reverting. The IP's changes to Oblasts of Ukraine were, in fact, correct. The previous incumbents for both positions of the governor of the oblasts in question were dated. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: Thanks for letting me know! I was not entirely sure, which is why I reverted based on "possible vandalism." I also didn't see a reference. I will double check next time. Cheers, TheCaliforniaKansan (talk) 03:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I doubt that there are too many of us who can profess to be angels when it comes to sometimes needing to make snap decisions where there are no edit summaries, references, et al (I certainly wouldn't deign to make any such claims as to a perfect record when it comes to reverts!). Hopefully, what we can rely on teamwork with other editors catching what we didn't. Happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Citation help

Dear Friend,

I'm new to this, and hope this is the right place to post a reply. Thanks for drawing my attention to the wrong citation format. I tried to correct it here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Pitt_the_Younger?veaction=edit

Could you please check it, to make sure it conforms to the Guidelines? If it doesn't, could you please correct it, and then let me know. I'll study the corrections and apply them in the future in other contexts.

With many thanks, Brachney (talk) 22:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)Bracheny

Thanks friend. This helped! Brachney (talk) 00:17, 27 October 2015 (UTC)Brachney

Away

Due to some urgent real life works, I will be away from Wikipedia for the next few days. I'm sorry for the inconvenience, I'll be back to you as soon as I return to my normal Wikipedia activity. Thank you for understanding. Jim Carter 18:37, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience, I've added a few tasks for you on your academy page. Thanks! Jim Carter 15:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the word "supposed"

You've recently deleted some of my modifications, because I have used the word "supposed" in completing religious claims, but you need to take into consideration that everything that the Bible claims, or miracle witnesses, without any evidence, has to be included in the "presumption" zone. It is the same as in Court, where the suspect is always suspect and not guilty until proven. If there are no evidence to support the idea that he is guilty, or until these evidence will be found, he will remain just a suspect, which is the neutral position, until proven otherwise. When talking about miracles and biblical claims, I think it is fair and completely neutral to use the word "supposed", because we are talking about untested theories. This is the neutral position. It's nothing wrong to leave room for interpretation and not present the claims as facts, because that leads to the distortion of the viewer's perspective. From my point of view, presenting them as facts is subjective. The neutral position is to remain uncertain about the verdict until proven otherwise. Please reconsider your position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patru bogdan (talk • contribs) 14:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

@Patru bogdan:, here is why I don't find it neutral, or in good taste. Regardless of belief, we can discern that some things are real, and some just aren't. For instance, Immortality. There is no evidence whatsoever that this exists. Same with Hermes, same with the Underworld, and same with basically any spiritual phenomena. I don't see you adding "supposed" to all those. Now who's the neutral one?

Now, I don't see anyone editing the Scientology article, and inserting "supposed" to every other line. I understand that there isn't definitive evidence for these events, but that doesn't mean that we have to add "supposed" to every near-ficticious event/phenomena. TheCaliforniaKansan (talk) 23:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Concerning the Paul Ryan page

Hey TheCaliforniaKansan. Thank you for your concern about the Paul Ryan page. My edit was intentional and for a good reason. Every source I have seen, including the House.gov website, states that Ryan is the 54th Speaker, not the 62nd. I'm going to edit the page again. If you would not edit my changes, that would be appreciated. Thank you for your concern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShakespeareTheBard (talk • contribs) 10:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@ShakespeareTheBard: I apologize, it appears that there is an issue with the speaker of the house list, as there have been officials who have held the office for some congressional sessions that aren't necessarily consecutive. For example, Henry Clay held the office three separate times, none of them which are consecutive. With this, it has increased the "number of speakers" by three instead of one. I'm on my mobile at the moment, so it's diccicult to link, but I'm sure you get the idea. I apologize for the trouble. I will search for a solution to this issue. It seems that for Clay and the other speakers with similar backgrounds, their info boxes are going to need editing(I.e. 3 separate entries for Clay). <be> TheCaliforniaKansan (talk) 15:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Alright, it seems that while Paul Ryan may bet he 54th speaker, he is also the 62nd... If we look at the number of different people who have served, he is indeed the 54th, but at the same time he is also the 62nd, as previously mentioned above. It's like President Obama. He is the 44th President of the United States, but he is the 43rd person to hold the office due tol two of President Cleveland's non consecutive terms. Does that make sense?
-TheCaliforniaKansan (talk) 17:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Paul Ryan

The first article definitely does say reduces benefits for those under 55

"--Ryan endorses a version of President Bush's partial privitization of Social Security, giving younger Americans the option of investing as much as a third of their money, and filling the multi-trillion dollar transition gap that would result by using general revenue. In other words, the rest of the government budget might have to be significantly cut in order to allow Social Security to be saved. (Ryan says this isn't necessarily true.) The CBO concluded that "traditional retirement benefits would be reduced below those scheduled under current law for many workers who are age 55 or younger in 2011." Benefits for current retirees would stay the same." Please reconsider your revert. Lipsquid (talk) 04:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@Lipsquid:, thank you for alerting me. I went ahead and reverted my original undo. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I had searched for "under 55" and did not see any relevant material. Thanks for letting me know, sorry for the trouble. --TheCaliforniaKansan (talk) 05:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

It is no trouble, I appreciate people being thorough. Thanks for being open and easy to work with... Lipsquid (talk) 05:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Henry Percy

If you are interested in knowing the truth in this matter I have all Percy records and Papers, I am a direct decent of Henry and Mary Percy. My name is Dawn Piercy. I am in the United States of America. This bloodline is alive and well. Dawn M Piercy (talk) 18:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

@Dawn M Piercy: Are you able to verify this? According to the cited biography, he had no known heirs. -TheCaliforniaKansan (talk) 18:35, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

It says my family blood line is non existent. Henry and Mary Talbot had a son, he was not stillborn. William Pearcy. They added an a to Percy. Our line is now residing in the United States of America. Dawn M Piercy (talk) 19:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

@Dawn M Piercy: Okay Dawn, I assume that you are correct, but you must cite your sources. Would you be able to somehow publish the papers you have? -TheCaliforniaKansan (talk) 19:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I have all parties and they ate now published in ancestry records bit I also published them on Dawnpiercy.com How do I go about publish them in other ways? I have all family ID #'s. Dawn M Piercy (talk) 20:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

@Dawn M Piercy: I checked out your website. Where did you obtain that chart? Is there another website you got that from? If so, can you link it? Thanks! This is good because now I know that you are wholeheartedly telling the truth :) -TheCaliforniaKansan (talk) 20:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

The papers were passed down from generation to generation in the family and that information is in the National Archives of the Family Research Center. I have the original papers that are passed down in the family as well as family heirlooms as well. Dawn M Piercy (talk) 21:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC) I can give you all of my family's ID numbers so you can look them up I haven't going White Pass William the Conqueror as well as my mother is also from royal descent and from a noble line. Dawn M Piercy (talk) 21:32, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

@Dawn M Piercy:, alright. Can you add a citation on the article page? Try the best you can to include the best reference possible (click the cite button while editing for help). Also, can you fix all the parts of the article that state that he was childless? Thanks! I will double check it later. Cheers and happy editing! -TheCaliforniaKansan (talk) 21:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Elion Resources Group

Hello my friend. Yes, that one had copyvio written all over it. The source was the reference at the bottom. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak: Thanks for letting me know. I didn't see a reference but I knew something was up. Cheers, -TheCaliforniaKansan (talk) 06:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

No worries. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:13, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

CVUA

It has been sometime since you checked your academy page. I've add two tasks for you there. Looking forward to see your answers. Best, Jim Carter 05:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

@Jim Carter: sorry for the leave of absence. I have been on the Fallout 4 craze, and will be partially inactive for sometime in the near future. I will complete the next two assignments within the next week. I did see them and did take note of their complexity. I will have to scour through my edits to find what you are looking for. It's all there in my recent edits, it's just a matter of me fetching them, and pasting the URLs. Thank you for your persistence. -TheCaliforniaKansan (talk) 23:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Duplicate category

Hi-the category for Wisconsin socialists is vague and one of the editors created categories for 2 different socialst parties that existed at one time. I was trying provide some clarification since the Wisconsin socialist category is vague and there are more specific socialist parties. Many thanks-RFD (talk) 23:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

@RFD: I don't know what you are talking about, "WI socialists"... I have never edited an article pertaining to Wisconsin whatsoever. So please, enlighten me as to why you removed the duplicate categories? Why should Category:Members of the Kansas Legislature even exist at all then? -TheCaliforniaKansan (talk) 01:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Jeff King (politician)

In regards as to why it's a duplicate category: Category:Members of the Kansas Legislature is already listed in the categories Category:Members of the Kansas House of Representatives & Category:Kansas State Senators. Therefore, it isn't needed in the article. See WP:CATEGORY for more information. 🎄 Corkythehornetfan 🎄 01:27, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

@Corkythehornetfan:, thank you for replying, the user who previously removed the categories did not reply on my talk page or theirs. But my question for you is: why does the category exist at all? There are only two positions within the Kansas Legislature... representatives and senators, so why does the category exist if it's just repetitious?

-TheCaliforniaKansan (talk) 02:40, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Here is my guess: Category:Members of the Kansas Legislature is the parent category, making the senate and house cats subcategories. Category:Members of the Kansas Legislature is a subcategory to its parent Category:State legislators of the United States, which leads you to all legislatures in the 50 states and then some. So since they're both in the Legislature category, it dosen't need to be in the article. I don't work with categories much, so here is how I see it: It's like a family tree – you have the head honcho at the top and then you have it's offspring. Hope that helps. 🎄 Corkythehornetfan 🎄 03:31, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

@Corkythehornetfan: oh I see. I realize now that it is a parent category/subcategory. I've worked on a lot of these pages, and most of them already had "Members of the KS Legislature" already inside the article. Thanks for the clarification. -TheCaliforniaKansan (talk) 03:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

No problem! Glad you are keeping these horrible creatures' articles up to date! I try very hard not to edit the KS Legislature member articles as I don't much nice to say about them. Keep up the good work! 🎄 Corkythehornetfan 🎄 03:43, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Globe Trekker. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Globe Trekker. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Globe Trekker. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

You have been pruned from a list

Hi Globe Trekker! You're receiving this notification because you were previously listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Members, but you haven't made any edits to the English Wikipedia in over 3 months.

Because of your inactivity, you have been removed from the list. If you would like to resubscribe, you can do so at any time by visiting Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Members.

Thank you! Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)