User talk:Yellowdesk

Yellowdesk — User talk —  Contributions  — Email

To leave me a message on a new topic, click on this "new message" item.
Please sign your message with four tilde symbols like so: ~~~~
I prefer to reply on my own talk page to discussions started here.
Tell me if that doesn't work for you.

Archive #1 - September 26, 2006 - April 2, 2008
Archive #2 - April 3, 2008 - November 21, 2016

2017 Melbourne car attack

The current event tag on this article should probably remain because 5 people are in a critical condition and it is not yet clear whether they will survive the following days. Therefore, the "4 people died" in the lede may not turn out to be accurate. I haven't reverted but perhaps you will consider putting it back. Cheers. 122.105.136.111 (talk) 22:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• The template is not about what happened, it is an advisory that the article is being edited by many people, which is not occurring on the article.
  Yellowdesk (talk) 14:43, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Questions Regarding Early Presidential Primaries (1940 and Back)

I've been working collecting data on the results for the Democratic Presidential caucuses or state conventions that were held in earlier years, 1940 being the starting point given I was interested at the time in the Anti-Third Term movement that had sprung up then, and while I can't access all the data in question anyway (I'm using the New York Times as a source, but I'm not a subscriber and so can't look at the articles in detail), I've provided them in the talk pages. Having gotten down to 1928 now, however, I'm not certain how best to display the information given, and I'm not sure if there really is a precedent(s) for it given the operational differences between the Modern Primary and the more Archaic Primary of yesteryear. For example;

1. In 1928 Al Smith clearly won the Democratic Presidential Preference Primary in Ohio over Senator Atlee Pomerene, but the latter was awarded the entirety of the delegation. The situation in question is in an article I provided on the talk page for the '28 Democratic Primaries, but when you have delegates not being bound or awarded based on the results of a Primary, should that be counted as a separate contest? How should we display that on a map? Should one be given preference?
2. Depending on the year in question you either end up with a handful, none, or a whole slew of favorite-son candidates ready to represent State delegations, and these candidates technically have "won" delegates. However in some cases, like those I identified for the 1968 Republican nomination race, are far more than the infobox could possibly handle when combined with the actual candidates (even if we are just talking about candidates and favorite sons that won delegates, that would make 17). Should we give preference based on delegates won? On actual candidates vs. Favorite Sons? What about if they've withdrawn and endorsed a candidate? Should Favorite Sons be combined somehow (for map and infobox purposes) and explained separately in another section?
3. In a number of the Presidential Primaries and even Caucuses I have encountered language that the delegates in question are officially unpledged or uninstructed, but have a strong preference or are generally understood for being for a certain candidate. Under those conditions, should those delegations be considered Unpledged, or should they be considered as being for the candidate? Should the votes of those delegations be included in a candidate's vote total?

These are the major questions at the moment. I'll also be asking a few others Presidential Elections Wikiproject as well to chime in, so if you have any ideas on how best I should proceed, I'd ask that the responses be put into Talk:Democratic Party presidential primaries, 1932. Thanks ahead of time. --Ariostos (talk) 03:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks, Ariostos for the invitation to help out on primaries research.
  I think a table may be worth trying out, to describe the primaries (and other means of appointing delegates) and the linkage, if any, of a primary to bound delegates. A New York Times subscription is not so expensive, and you could do a short-term subscription, and print out the articles for your own research benefit. I encourage you, if possible, give a full citation to the articles you find (title, date, page number, author, if given), to aid the next person who may desire to help out.
  I'm sorry, I'm not in a position to provide much aid on the project.
  Yellowdesk (talk) 17:56, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• Believe me when I saw while I wish I could afford a New York Times subscription, I simply don't have the disposable income to justify one. Once I'm out of College and working a steady job I'll think about it though. That said, I am terrible at citations on Wikipedia, having never really been able to memorize the code involved for them beyond the standard reference tag. Given another five years though maybe it will eventually stick. Thanks for getting back to me all the same though. --Ariostos (talk) 23:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

• Hi Ariostos, since you are in college, you may have pretty good access to the archive of the New York Times. Your college library may be able to provide online archival access of some variety, if you ask. In all probability, the library also has the NYTimes on microfilm, and it is possible to read the articles that way, since you know the dates of all of the articles you were able to find. Ask a librarian what the possibilities may be. I'll see if I can write up a brief guide to simple references. After you do about fifty, you'll won't have any problem remembering the formats.
  Yellowdesk (talk) 04:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• Well Yellowdesk, that's what I thought; unfortunately it seems that North Shore Community's access to the New York Times only goes back as far as 1980 (though they admitted they once had total access), and the Public Library here in Wakefield is in a similar situation. I don't know, I'll think of something in the short-term, though long-term I may well just end up subscribing to the Times. Also Wasted Time R has brought up some good points regarding the current presentation of the data, so I'm going to be creating a new table format that doesn't concentrate as heavily on the vote aspect. --Ariostos (talk) 16:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• Alright, so this is what the new results box I made is going to look like, with examples of what the various types of contests are going to look like.

Democratic Presidential Nominating State Conventions and Primaries
Date	State	Contest Type	Candidate	Votes Won (#)	Votes Won (%)	Delegates Won	Reference(s)
March 12	New Hampshire	Primary	Uninstructed (Support Franklin D. Roosevelt)	10,501	100 / 100 (100%)	8 / 8 (100%)	-
April 2	Wisconsin	Primary	Franklin D. Roosevelt	322,991	75.35 / 100 (75%)	21 / 24 (88%)	-
			John Nance Garner	105,662	24.65 / 100 (25%)	3 / 24 (13%)
May 7	California	Primary	Franklin D. Roosevelt	723,782	74.05 / 100 (74%)	44 / 44 (100%)	-
			John Nance Garner	114,594	11.72 / 100 (12%)	-
			Willis Allen	90,718	9.28 / 100 (9%)	-
			Ellis E. Patterson	48,337	4.95 / 100 (5%)	-
May 13	North Dakota	State Convention	Franklin D. Roosevelt	-	-	16 / 16 (100%)	-

• Do you think there is anything I should change, or is it fine as is? --Ariostos (talk) 20:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• It's beautiful, Ariostos.
  In a copy-edit manner, I tried making the table narrower, so it does not go beyond any particular page, by specifying 100% instead of pixels, at 1100 px. I haven't done mobile-aware tables...wondering how mobile handles tables. I made columns narrower, by using the html "break", ⟨br⟩, on long lines. You could check the changes in edit mode.
  •It would be useful to get a critique on how to indicate that primaries, and all of the delegate-appointment process actually worked differently then. Beauty contests that did not cause delegates to be appointed, and instances where the delegates did not have to be loyal to their candidate.
  • Wasted Time R may have useful critique on the generality and value of tables for this purpose, and have suggestions, and how to show how crazily non-uniform delegate selection was then, and how to show whether delegates were actually required to vote for the candidate that nominally were elected a delegate for. This is real political science / history research. Perhaps talk to an American History professor about your research archive problem.
  • You may want to check around for being able to research at bigger libraries near you, for cities like Peabody and Salem, Lynn, and wealthy suburbs like Burlington. And other nearby colleges, and whether they would allow visitors to use their library. Almost definite;y, Salem State Univ., or perhaps, or UMass Lowell would allow it, I speculate. Maybe local private colleges.
  -- Yellowdesk (talk) 04:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks.
I can't remember if I knew about allowing it to adjust for page length or not, but it makes sense. The only problem for me is cosmetic in that those composition and percentage bars aren't centered like the rest of the text, and I haven't found any manner in which to do so; that may be why I opted for manually setting the table size.
Something which I have done before, and which I forgot to do here, was to specify how many delegates were in contention for a particular contest against how many were provided to the State or Territory. So if say California had 44 delegates assigned to it, and it were to hold a primary but no delegates were in contention, under the type column it would read Primary⟨br⟩(0 of 44 delegates). Also it is thankfully rather clear, so far, when you have specification of instructed and uninstructed; for now I have instructed delegates being considered straight wins by the candidate, whereas uninstructed delegates are "technically" won by uncommitted as they aren't pledged, but the delegation is considered won by the candidate which it favors. It's not perfect by any means, but I think it is an effective compromise for the time being.
Ironically I used to attend Salem, so I might try them. More likely though I'll just lean on one of my parents and have them subscribe to the Times, giving me access whilst they have more newspapers to never read; in the long run it would be cheaper then paying for the gas to shuttle myself constantly to places like Salem or Peabody. --Ariostos (talk) 16:05, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Don't mean to clutter your talk page, but I just wanted to show you what the table looks like as of right now with some additional changes and with all the primaries and some of the State Conventions added; I do plan to eventually add vote totals to the State Conventions if and when I can view the full articles of the Times to see when they are stated. Some of the primaries are still missing delegate totals because I don't know if they were beauty contests or not. --Ariostos (talk) 17:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm kind of old school and I think the @Ariostos: layout has a bit too much visual orientation, especially the slider graphics which usually are redundant to "100%". Also check the state delegate totals. Per this NYT story from just before the first ballot at the convention, there are a number of discrepancies, with the NYT several times showing 2 delegates more than is here for a given state. Maybe what would be considered superdelegates nowadays? Wasted Time R (talk) 14:30, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Democratic Presidential Nominating State Conventions and Primaries
Date	State	Contest Type	Candidate	Votes Won (#)	Votes Won (%)	Delegates Won	Reference(s)
January 5	Louisiana	State Convention (20 of 20 delegates)	Uninstructed (Later Supported O. John Rogge)	-		20 / 20 (100%)
March 12	New Hampshire	Primary (8 of 8 delegates)	Uninstructed (Support Franklin D. Roosevelt)	10,501	100 / 100 (100%)	8 / 8 (100%)	-
March 27	Maine	State Convention (10 of 10 delegates)	Franklin D. Roosevelt	-		10 / 10 (100%)
April 2	Wisconsin	Primary (24 of 24 delegates)	Franklin D. Roosevelt	322,991	75.35 / 100 (75%)	21 / 24 (88%)	-
			John Nance Garner	105,662	24.65 / 100 (25%)	3 / 24 (13%)
April 7	Puerto Rico	State Convention (6 of 6 delegates)	James Farley	-		6 / 6 (100%)
April 9	Illinois	Primary	Franklin D. Roosevelt	1,176,531	86.04 / 100 (86%)	-	-
			John Nance Garner	190,081	13.95 / 100 (14%)	-
			Others	35 (W)	0.00 / 100 (0%)	-
	Nebraska	Primary	Franklin D. Roosevelt	111,902	100 / 100 (100%)	-	-
April 23	Pennsylvania	Primary	Franklin D. Roosevelt	724,657	100 / 100 (100%)	-	-
April 26	Hawaii	State Convention (6 of 6 delegates)	Franklin D. Roosevelt	-		6 / 6 (100%)
April 30	Massachusetts	Primary (36 of 36 delegates)	Uninstructed (Support James Farley)	76,919	100 / 100 (100%)	36 / 36 (100%)	-
May 5	South Dakota	Primary	Uninstructed	27,636	100 / 100 (100%)		-
May 7	Alabama	Primary (22 of 22 delegates)	Uninstructed (Support William B. Bankhead)	196,508	100 / 100 (100%)	22 / 22 (100%)	-
	California	Primary (44 of 44 delegates)	Franklin D. Roosevelt	723,782	74.05 / 100 (74%)	44 / 44 (100%)	-
			John Nance Garner	114,594	11.72 / 100 (12%)	-
			Willis Allen	90,718	9.28 / 100 (9%)	-
			Ellis E. Patterson	48,337	4.95 / 100 (5%)	-
May 13	North Dakota	State Convention (16 of 16 delegates)	Franklin D. Roosevelt	-		16 / 16 (100%)	-
May 14	Ohio	Primary (52 of 52 delegates)	Uninstructed (Support Charles W. Sawyer)	283,952	100 / 100 (100%)	52 / 52 (100%)	-
	West Virginia	Primary	H. C. Allen	102,729	100 / 100 (100%)	-	-
May 17	North Carolina	State Convention (26 of 26 delegates)	Franklin D. Roosevelt	-		26 / 26 (100%)
	Oregon	Primary	Franklin D. Roosevelt	109,913	87.17 / 100 (87%)	-	-
			John Nance Garner	15,584	12.36 / 100 (12%)	-
			Others	601	0.48 / 100 (0.5%)	-
May 21	Delaware	State Convention (6 of 6 delegates)	Franklin D. Roosevelt	-		6 / 6 (100%)
	New Jersey	Primary	Franklin D. Roosevelt	34,278 (W)	99.51 / 100 (100%)	-	-
			John Nance Garner	59	0.17 / 100 (0.2%)	-
			Others	111	0.32 / 100 (0.3%)	-
May 22	Maryland	State Convention (16 of 16 delegates)	Millard Tydings	-		16 / 16 (100%)
May 23	Vermont	State Convention (6 of 6 delegates)	Franklin D. Roosevelt	-		6 / 6 (100%)
June 4	Connecticut	State Convention (16 of 16 delegates)	Franklin D. Roosevelt	-		16 / 16 (100%)

Scout Schultz shooting

Yellowdesk, I just wanted to correct my son's birth year. Scout was born in 1995, not 1996. Specifically, December 7, 1995. -Thank you ---- Lynne Schultz, lynnehs@gmail.com

P.S. My phone does not have a tilde symbol that I can find, sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.249.12 (talk) 10:57, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

You are not prevented from making the correction. Yellowdesk (talk) 14:56, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Yellowdesk. 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)

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 that 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.

— Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 11:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

2018 Gaza broder Protest

Hi

My name is Glenny, I read news article last night, about UN has warns Gaza escalation brink of war I add this page I can't edit on page it block it someone will add on article will be great here two articles to be post it will be on May 30. I will like someone add on 2018 Gaza Broder Protest page.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/un-envoy-gaza-escalation-a-warning-that-brink-of-war-near-1.3952696</ref> StarWarsGlenny (talk) 01:54, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I regret to say that your request is incoherent, and I will not act on your incoherent request. Yellowdesk (talk) 03:08, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

---

References from above:

Transaction note for NBA moves

I see you removed these on a number of players’s articles because the transaction was not cited. The reason the note is in place is that per consensus the articles aren’t uldate with new teams until after the league approves the move and it is announced by the team. The transaction note is to help editors know not to update the ar le until a final deal is reached (add templates, change lede, uodate team in infobox). For example, with Zach Lofton, there were a number of credible news reports on August 11 and 12 that he signed with the Detroit Pistons, whic spurred several users to uodate his article to say this, even though consensus is to wait for an announcement by the NBA or Pistons. But there is always a lag between reports and the actual sign8ng (sometimes hours, so,times weeks). Please leave these in place for transactions working there way through the system to help editors. Thanks Rikster2 (talk) 12:26, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Tamba Hali

I noticed that you edited Tamba’s wiki page 8 days ago. In his personal section, it mentions his son but fails to mention his daughter Sia that he had with his ex wife, Dana Hanley. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.234.7.246 (talk) 17:24, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Yellowdesk. 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)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Current events noticeboard

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Current events noticeboard . ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 01:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Yellowdesk/Baldwin, Hoar and Sherman family

User:Yellowdesk/Baldwin, Hoar and Sherman family, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Yellowdesk/Baldwin, Hoar and Sherman family and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Yellowdesk/Baldwin, Hoar and Sherman family during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Legacypac (talk) 02:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! (Cook Islands Dengue Fever)

I really appreciate your attention to the dengue fever article. Wikipedia certainly is challenging, and I really appreciate how you actually paid attention to it. Thanks! --Justin J. Liu (Dylan Smithson) (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:CEN is now open!

To all interested parties: Now that it has a proper shortcut, the current events noticeboard has now officially opened for discussion!

WP:CEN came about as an idea I explored through a request for comment that closed last March. Recent research has re-opened the debate on Wikipedia's role in a changing faster-paced internet. Questions of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:Recentism are still floating around. That being said, there are still plenty of articles to write and hopefully this noticeboard can positively contribute to that critical process.

Thank you for your participation in the RFC, and I hope to see you at WP:CEN soon! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:10, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 19:34, 29 June 2019 (UTC) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk)

'Current' template on Irish Backstop

I noted and accept your rationale for removing template:current from Irish backstop. I suspect that I may have chosen the wrong template in the first place. My aim was to flag the article as being volatile for the next week or so because of a rapidly changing political situation in the UK Parliament at present. Is there a more appropriate template I should use? --Red King (talk) 21:10, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

The general disclaimer at the foot of every article covers this, Wikipedia:General_disclaimer, and the article and lede paragraph can convey the temporal nature of the topic, which I am sure you can rectify; millions understand this is a changing topic. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 21:44, 19 October 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) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

On removal of current disaster templates

I disagree with your removal of current disaster templates due to insufficient recent activity. As per Template:Current disaster#Guidelines, the any article that is considered a current disaster, which I interpret to be more important than editing activity. Thanks. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 02:19, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@Darylgolden:
Quote of the primary guideline of {{current disaster}}: "This template was created for those occasions that many editors (perhaps a hundred or more) edit an article on the same day, as an advisory to editors." It is a copy and duplication of template "current" which also has the same guide. This template is particular to natural disasters in which there are so many editors participating that they are interfering with each others' edits. This is foundational in the creation of the template, and the template it was copied from {{current disaster}}, and {{current}}, respectively.
There is already a standard disclaimer at the bottom of each and every wikipedia page that the information should not be relied upon. As such, it is redundant and duplicative of existing standard and wikipedia-wide policies and disclaimers.
Yellowdesk (talk) 02:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19/Current consensus states that there is no current consensus about whether to use Template:Current at the top of articles covered by this project, and that changes of the material listed below in this article must be discussed first. Therefore, you should seek consensus, probably on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19, before making any further changes. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 02:52, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I've started a discussion to seek consensus here. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 03:09, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree that your removal of current event templates from many articles is inappropriate and unhelpful; the template is *also* for events that are currently in the news and changing rapidly, regardless of how many editors are working on the article. Templates can cover multiple use cases, and this one is for - as the name implies - current events. To (as you did) quote the template documentation -- "It should be used on any article that is considered a current disaster. That is to say, one that is still taking place." -- phoebe / (talk to me) 00:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• Greetings, phoebe. Here is the link to complete guide for use, which your comment indicates you have not reviewed. The Template:Current#Guidelines are abundantly clear for {{current}}:
  That it is not intended to remain on an article for more than a day or two, that it is intended for editor advisory, to warn editors to not conflict with each other, and is not intended to signify an event to notice, as there are other well formed methods to do so, including categories, and the "in the news" process.
  That is the template that was on the article in question, 2019–20 locust infestation, not the current disaster template.
  Yellowdesk (talk) 00:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

---

Manannan's Land (talk) 09:16, 17 April 2020 (UTC) Current Disaster Isle of Man. Merely one editor in the past few days.

Yep. Total population of Isle of Man is c. 85,000. I'm updating the stats daily because I live on IoM and when I found the page nobody else had been updating it reliably. Unreasonable to assume that a page specific to a small jurisdiction would always have multiple updaters. Therefore your amendment may be inappropriate.

• Then use of the template is inappropriate, and unneeded, since there are not multiple updates. See the guide for the template, indicating to use for instances of heavy edit traffic.
  Yellowdesk (talk) 15:27, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• Link for alleged guide? The only template format / description information I have found has been clear as mud with incredibly poor data / format specifications and does not comply with my understanding of a template guide. And while the template may be designed for heavy edit traffic that does not mean its use is inappropriate - readers expect (rightly) to see common format being used for same purpose across different jurisdictional data sets, therefore a common template for all jurisdictional data sets is a crucial part of providing readers with a consistently intelligible document format. Manannan's Land (talk) 15:49, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• Template:Current disaster#Guidelines

• "This template was created for those occasions that many editors (perhaps a hundred or more) edit an article on the same day, as an advisory to editors."
  Yellowdesk (talk) 16:11, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• Many thanks. Is there / do you know where I find the DTD for the template, and the DTD syntax? Also for the Medical Cases Chart? 'fraid I am not familiar with Wikipedia / "wikitext" format or syntax - I do have a robust understanding of SGML and derivatives but when I look at the source of wiki pages and templates I'm lost, it appears to be a proprietary format. I am having to guess at content type and format for document elements because I'm not seeing the DTD links or embedded DTD rules. Manannan's Land (talk) 16:34, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• OK, found Template:Medical cases chart - do you know if anyone has defined column types for "4th classification" & "5th classification". For example the confirmed cases is a weak metric in respect of measuring the prevalence of the disease without understanding the total number of tests taken or %age of population - or do I need to create my own charts for these "additional" metrics? Thx. Manannan's Land (talk) 17:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

---

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Contra dance

Template:Contra dance has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. User:GKFX^talk 20:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:USA PATRIOT Act sidebar

Template:USA PATRIOT Act sidebar has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 15:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy documents for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy documents is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy documents until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

FishandChipper 🐟🍟 14:10, 23 August 2022 (UTC)