Open main menu

Election mapEdit

Hey man the original page got archived so I made a new one. Got another retirement this time it’s Bill Fore’s of Texas 17th district. Wollers14 (talk) 14:17, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

And another one this time it's Susan Davis of California's 53rd district. Wollers14 (talk) 21:56, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Wow yet even another one Jim Sesenbrenner of Wisconsin's 5th district. Wollers14 (talk) 00:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Working on it! Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 19:20, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Hey man got another one here. Roger Marshall of Kansas 1st district he is running for the Senate. Wollers14 (talk) 17:23, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Hey man I'll keep you posted on the results of the North Carolina elections tonight. Wollers14 (talk) 23:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Greg Murphy wins in NC-03 mark it as a Republican incumbent. Thank you. Wollers14 (talk) 00:31, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Just an update it might be a good while before NC-09 comes in. Will let you know as soon as it does. Wollers14 (talk) 00:48, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

UPDATE: NC-09 has been called Dan Bishop wins mark NC-09 as a GOP Incumbent. That's it for the night my friend. Thank you and good night. Wollers14 (talk) 02:20, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

North Carolina fully updated. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 02:26, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Hey man right now I got a cold but I’m still active in watching things go down. Got another retirement : Paul Cook of California’s 8th district. Wollers14 (talk) 00:39, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Updated California. Hope you feel better soon! Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 01:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks man! Got another too Joe Kennedy is running for senate making Massachusetts’s 4th district open. Wollers14 (talk) 22:22, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Hey man, it's been awhile but we got another retirement this time it's Mac Thornberry of Texas's 13th District. Wollers14 (talk) 16:18, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Now Chris Collins is going to resign. Mark NY-27 as vacant. Wollers14 (talk) 21:53, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Hey man happy October and happy retirement to Nita Lowey of New York’s 17th district. Wollers14 (talk) 18:00, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Misleading titleEdit

See "Rather than the action of vaping, it is about what people are vaping that is causing the lung illnesses.[7]" It was not vaping itself that caused the illnesses. An oversimplified title is vague and could be misleading to the readers. Adding the image to the lede is misleading. See "The second vaping-induced lung illness death in the US and the first death of its kind in Oregon had used a vaping product containing cannabis oil that was legally purchased from a cannabis shop.[24] It is the first death in the US linking a vaping product to a purchase from a licensed dispensary.[24]" Legal cannabis vapes are also causing the illnesses. See "Legal cannabis liquid purchased from licensed shops is routinely tested and has not been affected."[1] That's not true. There is a lot of misinformation that is being reported. Wikipedia should be careful not to perpetuate any type of misinformation. See MOS:BOLDTITLE for displaying the first sentence in bold. QuackGuru (talk) 18:44, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

See MOS:BEATLES. Also, the title is too wordy and it's very unlikely someone looking for information on the outbreak will know to search up the current very-specific title. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 19:58, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
It is common practice to bold the text that matches the title. If a reader searches for a similar title they can find to by a redirect. See the redirects. QuackGuru (talk) 20:11, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Search results using just two words. QuackGuru (talk) 20:34, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I understand the reason you want the image at the top of the article. You want to blame the illicit vapes for causing most of the deaths. That's original research. QuackGuru (talk) 23:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

That's not original research, most places are blaming Vitamin E acetate. The updated caption is accurate. Also, again, read MOS:BEATLES. It is a part of MOS:BOLDTITLE! I suggest you at least self-revert that part. And don't police the page just because you split the article prior to a consensus being reached. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 23:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
See MOS:BEATLES: "In general, if the article's title is absent from the first sentence, do not apply the bold style to related text that does appear:" That is not applicable to this case. That is about if the title is absent from the first sentence.
Most places that are blaming Vitamin E acetate do not have evidence to support their claims and contradicts CDC and the US FDA. The testing by the US FDA is not even finished yet. The updated caption is unsourced and a violation of WP:CAPTION. QuackGuru (talk) 23:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The title is absent! Read the example about The Beatles in the United States! I can't revert because of WP:3RR, but please reread all of MOS:BOLDTITLE if you're going to cite it! Worth noting that you "include the title if it can be accommodated in a natural way"; the current way is not natural. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 23:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The title is not absent for the first sentence. The bold text naturally matches the title in the first sentence. QuackGuru (talk) 23:59, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Look at the example regarding "The Beatles in the United States". It's an identical scenario!
  The Beatles' rise to prominence in the United States on February 7, 1964, was a significant development in the history of the band's commercial success. (The Beatles in the United States)
  The Beatles' rise to prominence in the United States in February 1964 was a significant development in the history of the band's commercial success. (The Beatles in the United States)
Apply it to the lede you currently have randomly bolded:
  In 2019, an outbreak of severe lung illness across multiple states in the US has been linked to the use of vaping products. (2019 United States outbreak of lung illness linked to vaping products)
  In 2019, an outbreak of severe lung illness across multiple states in the US has been linked to the use of vaping products. (2019 United States outbreak of lung illness linked to vaping products)
Look similar enough? Please self-revert. If you don't understand MOS:BOLDTITLE, please use a relevant talk page instead of being disruptive. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 00:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I have naturally bolded the text that appears in the article's title. It was not random. The text in the article's title does appear in the first sentence. QuackGuru (talk) 00:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
It seems you're misunderstanding why MOS:BEATLES exists... Look at the side-by-side comparison to The Beatles! Please self-revert. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 00:18, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
If the article title and the bold text must be exactly the same then I can self-revert. I think MOS:BEATLES is a bit vague. QuackGuru (talk) 00:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
See "In general, if the article's title is absent from the first sentence, do not apply the bold style to related text that does appear:" It wasn't related text. It was the same wording found in the title. QuackGuru (talk) 00:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Again... look at the example with The Beatles. It's the same wording found in the title as well, but that's incorrect formatting. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 00:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Your saying the text and title must match word for word in order for it to be in bold. QuackGuru (talk) 00:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm saying that the precise words "2019 United States outbreak of lung illness linked to vaping products" need to be in the lede to be bolded. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 00:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I think MOS:BEATLES does not exactly state that. It left the door open for interpretation. It should be clarified to avoid this kind of dispute in the future. QuackGuru (talk) 00:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

You are well past 3 reverts but your edits were vaporized like smoke. QuackGuru (talk) 15:36, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

You need to stop preventing other editors from contributing to the article as well. Having all the images centered at the bottom of every subsection makes the article look more like something you'd read on Wikia, not Wikipedia. Also, your image of the victim holding up the "I Want To Start A No Vaping Campaign" sign does not pass the fair use criteria as it doesn't add further understanding and context for readers and no reliable source establishes its specific importance; I would nominate it for deletion, but I'm not sure how to do that formally. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 17:19, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
If an edit adds original research or other problems I can delete it. I moved some of the images to the right and added a new image to the lede. "I Want To Start A No Vaping Campaign" has gone viral and is a salient topic. I didn't fully understand the topic until I saw the image of the person hooked up to machines! QuackGuru (talk) 18:36, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Kanye WestEdit

Lovely to see your hard work on Jesus Is King. I've already GA nominated Kids See Ghosts and The Life of Pablo is almost ready; Ye is next for GA status after that. But as you can probably tell I'm trying to make West's albums a GA topic since the ones prior to these are already GAs, so I'd like to ask would you wish to work with me on making Jesus Is King one after it's out since you had originally nominated Yandhi for one as well? I don't mean literally a few days after the release as single releases and maybe even updates will 99% occur so it would instant fail due to stability, I'm referring to a period at least months after the album's release? --Kyle Peake (talk) 06:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@Kyle Peake: Sounds good to me! I've been keeping up with the background recording process for nearly a year (that subsection is quite lengthy at the moment), so I'm sure I can help out with make Jesus Is King fit GA status. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 11:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Yeah sounds good, I've been working hard on TLOP but not too sure if "the album was voted by readers at the position of fifth for the most underrated and most overrated album of the year, respectively" reads correctly, do you think the sentence needs changing or is it fine like this? I've tried but can't seem to find a good way to reword so would be more than welcome for your input. --Kyle Peake (talk) 15:21, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Do you think a GA review for KSG is possible? --Kyle Peake (talk) 18:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
As in, you'd like me to do a GA review for the article? Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 01:20, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, as we're both interested in giving West a GT with his albums. Do you think a review would be possible? --Kyle Peake (talk) 07:03, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I'll try to review KSG sometime this week if I have the time. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 17:38, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Not original researchEdit

For the record, this isn't "original research". I know to you that technically probably constitutes original research because there's no available source (which is not to say that a source doesn't exist) describing the sequence of events, but I added that at the time the article was written—you know, before you started editing it—and that was what happened. Atlantic Records revealed the cover art and title, whether intentionally or not, before Charli had the chance to. Oh, and please don't restore the clear template. Nobody besides you appears to want big blank white spaces on articles, and it really appears you're the only editor who bothers adding it on whatever article is currently the focus of your attention. Most of the time it's not necessary—we don't know how many users have widescreen displays so that the template doesn't interfere with the track listing or the displays of most users (mobile, etc). Regardless, it doesn't squash it that much that it's unintelligible. It's not desirable in most cases. Thanks. Ss112 01:58, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and I've reverted your insertion of it onto Pop 2 (mixtape). Please don't edit war over it, as if you do, I will take it up with an administrator. You have previously warned (including by myself) and even been blocked for edit warring, so I suggest you don't. Clear templates are not a requirement. You're free to do it on whatever article you start and where you've written all the material, but when you go around adding it to articles you didn't solely write but only have an interest in and where you think it's needed, that's where it gets problematic. Ss112 02:02, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
You need to calm down! Also, the OR I removed from Charli is tiny technicals about accidental "leaks" that weren't widely covered and were no longer seen in the sources provided. Don't take all this so personally. And read WP:OWN sometime! Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 17:38, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Also I'd suggest reading on when the clear template is meant to be used, because I believe to be using it right. It's meant to prevent the flow of information onto an unrelated section. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 19:02, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Extended discussion 19:52, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Hilarious. Thanks buddy, I know what WP:OWN is and so does everybody on this site. I literally tell you that nobody would want a big white space on an article, and that's "owning" an article to you...right. Overstate much? That's like me saying you putting it there is you owning an article because that's the way you want to have it. Maybe try not to throw out stupid accusations of another editor owning an article when they disagree with you so freely in future. Also, I'm well aware what the clear template is for. That doesn't mean I insist on using it on as many articles as you do. And then, being the editor who can't leave something alone that you are, you go and tag the section for expansion with the assumption that all desktop viewers have the same view that you do, whereas I just told you I know for a fact viewing that page with a widescreen display would not cause any issues. It does not cause legibility concerns even at the current stage. Oh, and if you reply...Don't take it personally now. But I think you already did, hence why you want to cry "WP:OWN" when someone disagrees with a choice you made an article. Ss112 14:21, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
I commend your dedication to taking Wikipedia talk pages this seriously lol. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 17:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
...Says the user who just started a 1,000-byte discussion on the talk page of the article to use a damn clear template. Lmfao. Ss112 18:08, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Hey, you can't really blame me for trying to avoid an edit war. Had to be lengthy because I worried other editors would be confused about the use of the clear template like you are. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 18:09, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Lmao. Yeah. Because not wanting to use it is the same thing as being "confused" about it. And it's hilarious how you make out like your only other alternative would've been to "edit war" with me. If you tried it, or if you try it again on another issue, I will report you to an admin. I'm sure they'd like to know what your excuse is the next time when you've been blocked for it previously. Ss112 18:12, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Blocked for what exactly?? And obviously if I edit warred, you're meant to report me to an admin in the same sense that I'd report you if you did the same thing! Not much of a statement there. The use of the talk page is meant to avoid editing disputes. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 18:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
You have been blocked for edit warring in the past. How are you not aware of your own block log? Ss112 18:30, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
You mean from over a year ago in regards to Syrian-related articles? Yes, of course I'm aware. There's been plenty use of talk pages since then. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 19:52, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Kids See Ghosts and YeEdit

About Kids See Ghosts, I would be happy if you did follow through with a GA review this week. On a related note though, are there any current issues you can see that would result in a quick fail as I'm not too experienced with album articles? As for Ye, should the album total activity or albums number from source 127 be used for certified units/sales? --Kyle Peake (talk) 12:08, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@Kyle Peake: I'll run through the references tonight and let you know what I see. 👍 Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 18:20, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Move your content to Charli Live TourEdit

It's clogging up Charli (album) with extraneous detail that is not about the production or content of the album. Otherwise I'll move it there myself, but I thought you might want credit for what you wrote. You can leave a little paragraph about it on the article, but move the tour dates and set list. Ss112 03:23, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh, names of tours are not italicised (why would we italicise Charli Live? The name of the album is just "Charli", as you well know), and I've removed the table from the article because it's not sourced at all. If you do move it, make sure to source all those dates. Ss112 03:26, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
I was basing this on what's seen on articles such as Love + Fear and The Nicki Wrld Tour. I'll see if I can gather more information to start a separate article for the tour. By the way, the dates, locations and venues were all cited in the Billboard article I provided. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 03:31, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Then split it off today or I'll do it myself. It's getting too long for this article. I wouldn't use other pop articles as a template, they're not exemplary either. Tours are not part of an album's production, content and are extraneous even to the promotion of it. Ss112 03:35, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Created the article, but just so you know that when you've proposed a split, we can discuss it. No need to threaten a deadline. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 03:39, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Cool. Linked to main article, removed all but the paragraph from Charli as we should not be doubling up the same content. Ss112 03:42, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Looks good. 👍 Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 03:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Also, please don't restore the clear template again on the article. Great, you say it's a compromise, but you already opened a discussion to get consensus for its use no matter where it is, so wait for other users to weigh in before restoring it. Otherwise the discussion is pointless. Ss112 03:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Inserting content not supported by a cited sourceEdit

Please don't insert material that is not supported by a cited source. In this edit, you added text and then citations — but the citation you added does not support the text you added. I'm assuming this was inadvertent, but please be cautious. Regards --Neutralitytalk 00:10, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

"The whistleblower didn't have direct knowledge of the communications" from CNN. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 00:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
You also inserted that the whistleblower complaint was from a person "outside the Intelligence Community" which is not supported by either source. Neutralitytalk 00:24, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, which is why I didn't try to reinsert it. I misread the WaPo source. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 00:25, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Operation Peace SpringEdit

 On 9 October 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2019 Rojava offensive, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:07, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Nice4What".