Hello, Jamedeus! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages.
Her position as county commissioner on a county is not inherently notable per WP:NPOL, no significant coverage about her, she didn't pass the notability bar. Thank you.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
It's ridiculous to delete her or any of the county commissioners. We're here for information no? It's very bad for historical documentation when we do that. Sharon, Pederson etc. Should stay. GrandPeople44 (talk) 14:56, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Jamedeus. Question: What program do you use to do the ref saving/archiving? I see your gnomish work about, and would like that ability for certain articles I come across. Please, let me know. Thanks and Regards, GenQuest"scribble"07:00, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey GenQuest, it's called InternetArchiveBot [1]. I actually found it the same way after seeing another editor use it. Just a heads up: the interface is a bit finicky and sometimes freezes, but it still finishes in the background without submitting the link again. Enjoy! Jamedeus (talk) 07:06, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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.
This edit of yours makes no sense at all. I did the edits that you reverted.:
You found <math>\Theta(n_1 + \cdots + n_K)</math> to <math>\Theta(n_1</math>·...·<math>n_K)</math>. How does that make any sense? The system of math notation used here is deliberately designed to be in most respects the same as LaTeX, which is obviously supposed to accomodate the sort of notation used in this expression, yet whoever put that latter expression there left math mode and put in an ellipsis that is not in math mode. That is very far from proper usage.
In several instances, you changed \cdots to ..., whose effect in LaTeX would be to prevent proper spacing between dots and prevent proper centering.
There are good reasons why \sum rather than \Sigma is used.
Hi, thanks for notifying me - this was a major screw up on my part that I wouldn't have caught otherwise.
I don't pretend to understand latex and usually wouldn't revert this unless the issue was extremely obvious. My recollection is that it came up on my recent changes filter, I saw a broken ref tag and other formatting issues, and I reverted it. Looking back at the diffs this clearly isn't the case, even in the intermediate diffs. I honestly don't know what happened - my best guess is that I opened history in a new tab and then switched back to the wrong tab, which is embarrassing. I'll try to slow down since I'm new to recent changes.
I've never heard of King Mayyur or the Baghochia Dynasty, so I can't really help. Also, please post talk discussions at the bottom of the page. See WP:TALKNEW for details. Jamedeus (talk) 00:16, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very frustrated by the lack of local coverage everywhere and I focus extensively on Portland. Because I'm quite active. I'd like to work with you to create new standards on listing endorsements for such local races because I want the information of the why, what happened and who to be preserved, and local media is struggling and doesn't cover enough to be used as a source. Ballotpedia is too slow and restrictive. So you interested? GrandPeople44 (talk) 00:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey sorry for the late response, busy week. This is an interesting idea, more endorsement coverage definitely seems useful for non-partisan local races where a candidate's ideology is less obvious. I almost always look at the lists on candidate sites when I'm filling out my ballot to get an idea of which coalition they would join.
I can see some difficulty implementing this though. As you note local media doesn't cover many endorsements, and WP:ENDORSE specifically says sources have to be independent (so no candidate websites or endorser tweets). That doesn't seem to leave many options, unless you have ideas I'm not thinking of. Personally I'd be fine sourcing local endorsements to a tweet (keeping the notability requirement), but WP:LOCALCONSENSUS says we can't override a community-wide consensus (and the endorsement guidelines came from a community-wide RfC).
I haven't but I'll be following it now, seems like a good source! As far as using it on wikipedia, it's unfortunate that everything is on substack as this will likely be considered user-generated. I searched on WP:RSN and this seems to be consensus. She seems credible given the journalist background, sitting on local boards etc, but I still wouldn't be surprised if it was challenged.
It's worth noting we're still very early in the election, so there will probably be more endorsement coverage in a few months. Local papers don't really run headlines about endorsements but they usually at least mention the big ones in the late-cycle coverage. Jamedeus (talk) 07:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I notice you recently made a change to WEX Inc. (which is protected) Do you think you could look into adding the template mentioned in the talk page? Many thanks, 92.71.60.61 (talk) 12:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like somebody beat me to it! Sorry I missed your request - when I click on them from the list it scrolls to the bottom of the talk page, so I didn't see yours. If you need any other edits made you can use the edit request wizard to add them to the list, or feel free to ask me here! Jamedeus (talk) 23:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
About this, the user already tried to push same sources in the discussion I see they even tried using the same blog which was already mentioned to them is unacceptable [2], including in the first comment. I think it's wrong that the user has requested an extended confirmed edit with same sources that don't mention Georgian origin and which were discussed already while there are users actively opposing them in the discussion, the user doesn't even mention the discussion in their edit request. Just wanted to provide additional context. Cheers! Vanezi (talk) 03:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up! I'm not particularly familiar with this topic but from this history and discussion it definitely looks like an attempt to circumvent consensus. Jamedeus (talk) 20:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Faithless elector Bill Greene voted Ron Paul for president instead of Donald Trump, but still voted Mike Pence for vice president as he was pledged to. Thus, Pence received one more electoral vote than Trump. There is no mention of Mike Pence receiving 304 electoral votes in any of the "citations" you refer to. This is because he received 305, and Trump received 304. My edit was correct and did not need to be reverted. Alistair McBuffio (talk) 18:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alistair McBuffio you're correct, my mistake - I restored your edit and removed the talk page template.
It looks like the whole vice presidential column is essentially uncited, since the citation only deals with presidential electoral votes and doesn't verify any of the information. I'm looking through other pages for a citation to replace it and can't find anything. Do you know of any reliable sources with a summary of the vice presidential electoral votes that we could use? Jamedeus (talk) 19:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
