Redverton

The reference to a maiden name in that fashion is typical for biography articles on Wikipedia, though in many instances other formats are used to present it in the article; for example, starting off the first sentence past the lead with "She was born Yadda Yadda Yadda in Blowhardville, Wyoming". I've been adding DOBs to various articles from that same source, since they're lacking elsewhere. I'm not entirely sure, but I believe former senator Ralph Seekins championed changes to election laws a few years ago, and part of the changes was that candidates no longer had to publicly disclose their DOB like they did before. I could have sworn I've seen other published references that make it appear as if Giessel fudges her age publicly, making it appear that she was born in 1954 or 1955. Also, I have photos from the Senate Labor and Commerce Committee hearings held in Fairbanks in September, but I've been slack when it comes to Commons uploads in general lately. I'm leaving for Arizona soon and wanted to get some other things out of the way.RadioKAOS (talk) 19:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Looking over the DOB policy, it would appear to be in line with the reasoning (at least on the surface) in the change of law. My personal belief is that practical, common sense matters sometimes trumps policy pedantry (i.e. WP:IAR), which may not necessarily make me popular with some in the Wikipedia community. That court database is widely used on the Internet any time someone files to campaign for public office, and often for far more nefarious purposes than simply learning a DOB. For example, learning about criminal convictions, divorces, etc., which any bozo with at least a few blog or Twitter followers can then use to launch a campaign issue. This could possibly even lead to "reliable sources" picking up on it, though that's not likely in Alaska due to the major media feeding off of access to certain individuals in positions of power. My main issue would be that it smacks of historical revisionism of sorts when DOBs are widely known and/or published for 80 to 90 percent of sitting legislators, not to mention most if not all former legislators (which includes a significant number of living people, possibly numbering into the hundreds in the case of the Alaska Legislature), yet a few who came along in recent years get to be exempted from this. Perhaps the BLP noticeboard may offer some guidance here. I think that the statement contained in the DOB policy as to complaints from the subject would be the best approach, were it come to that. That way, an admin can alter the revision visibility of the article if so necessary.RadioKAOS (talk) 20:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Actually, I recall we went through this fairly recently with Tammie Wilson. Namely, a synthesis of sources points to her DOB, which she otherwise appears careful not to widely disclose. The overall problem appears to be that a number of newer legislators are lax in releasing biographical information through the usual channels (including their pages on the legislature's official website), and that no one is really asking for them to do so, including the media. Progress on Wilson's article stalled somewhat because properly sourcing it would require digging up years worth of stories published in the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, which requires either going through microfilm at the library or dealing with the NewsBank pay wall.RadioKAOS (talk) 21:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

As for my text comments, SSDI turns up one Gerald J. Bohms, January 8, 1924 – January 8, 2002. An online archive search of the Daily News-Miner confirms that, as found in the June 10, 2002 issue:

Gerald J. Bohms Longtime Fairbanksan Gerald "Jerry" Johnson Bohms died on his 78th birthday, Jan. 8, 2002, at Providence Medical Center in Anchorage.

So in response to what I meant by that comment, I take it you really meant that he arrived in Alaska in the late 1940s. For him to "move to Alaska in his late forties" (presuming this was in referring to his age at the time) would be contradictory to Cathy being born in Alaska in the early or mid 1950s.RadioKAOS (talk) 21:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I don't see any problem. Whether this creates a precedent for any other similar edits is another matter, but I'll suppose we'll figure that out when it comes to that.RadioKAOS (talk) 22:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Morning Redverton

I know you mean(t) well but it is hideously bad taste to launch a by-election article when an MP has only just passed away. We don't know when the election will be, if there is going to be one this year or not. The man has only just died, remember, there's not going to be an election for months yet, certainly not in 2011. I have redirected your article and the 2012 article for reasons of accuracy and of taste doktorb _words^deeds 10:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

I do get your reasoning on the grounds of taste. However, whilst I get it I must disagree - we're an encyclopaedia: we update information dispassionately, and by-election pages in the past have been set up just as quickly before and left to stand. In anycase, taste is no criteria for reversion. But, in anycase, I do agree in retrospect that it's wrong to set it up since we don't know for sure what year it will be. So, as you've inferred, best wait till we know the year for certain. So, in a half-way thank you because I don't like being called tasteless when I'm only trying to update the encylopedia in the same way others have before (!), thank you for your reversion. Redverton (talk) 10:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hey, yeah, maybe I was a bit strong. Sorry about that, consider that struck off :) I know people rush to start the articles but I have grown to dislike that knee-jerk reaction over the years because from the start of the article to the election being called, it's technically WP:CRYSTAL and for the most part, nothing is going to happen to update the article anyway. We should either wait for the funeral, or wait for enough hints about the date, and then start editing.−

I like working on by-election articles and will be happy to help out anything about candidates etc, but it's all best done once the initial period has passed. I look forward to working with you :) doktorb _words^deeds 10:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

No need to strike off anything - I do completely appreciate everything you've said. I only got annoyed because others have created such pages before and I imagine not got called tasteless, but in retrospect one must question whether that precedent itself is tasteless itself as you've inferred. So, in a roundabout way, I'll be more careful in creating such articles again. :) And thank you for offering to share the workload when the real updating begins: I'll be extremely happy to do that and look forward to editing the article at the appropriate time. Perhaps such work can really begin once a date is announced? Redverton (talk) 10:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

This is the thing with Wiki - the consensus has always been "Start an article straight away". I can accept doing that if an MP resigns. If an MP dies, we're pouring over the by-election article before the poor sap's been buried. I would obviously wait for the wider project to have their view but I would say the 2012 article can be "opened" after the funeral and once we start to get sources for candidate selection, dates etc. By the way I have updated the List of UK by-elections article but only a quick line of news, not a direct link to either 2011 or 2012 re-directs. doktorb _words^deeds 10:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Fair dos. I'll keep an eye out for news on such things and let you know if I spot any. Redverton (talk) 10:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hey. Thanks for the note. I'm a card carrying Liberal Democrat but as long as I don't turn every LibDem candidate's name purple and font size 200, I get away with any conflict of interest accusations ;) :). If you are stepping away from the article, fair do's, hope I can meet you somewhere else in the Wikipedia world for other editing assistance. Take a look at constituency articles where election results are missing, that's always a field in need of digging. Speak soon doktorb _words^deeds 18:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for taking the time to write that note, it is appreciated. 86.176.108.87 (talk) 12:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

You're very welcome, thank you for your response. :) Redverton (talk) 17:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Excellent job on that article. I'd like to suggest that you nominate it for WP:DYK. It would mean recognition for your work on the Main Page. But don't delay if you're interested--the submission deadline is rapidly approaching. – Lionel ^(talk) 09:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much for your suggestion. I'll take you up on it! Much appreciated. Redverton (talk) 16:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi. In Max Maxfield, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page First United Methodist Church (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Orlady (talk) 20:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi. When you recently edited Jerry Bonnet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BA (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, when you move a page you need to go through WhatLinksHere and change the links, especially look for things like templates as they can change a lot of pages very quickly. Cheers Mattlore (talk) 07:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the note, I'll set about doing that. Take care. Redverton (talk) 14:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

  Hello! Your submission of Steve Hogan at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Maile66 (talk) 22:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC) Maile66 (talk) 22:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Disregard this. I realize this nomination is fine. Maile66 (talk) 22:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Excellent, thank you. Redverton (talk) 23:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited R. Budd Dwyer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Casey (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Wifione ^Message 16:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

BaldBoris 10:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

BaldBoris 12:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello Redverton,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Island Independents for deletion, because it's too short to identify the subject of the article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks,

Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:47, 4 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Redverton. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Island Independents, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

1. edit the page
2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks,

Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:46, 4 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Please see WP:BEEF and please use a sandbox to collect your thoughts if you need to before adding it. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:55, 4 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Redirect target would be back to 2013 Isle of Wight County Council elections or whatever the sole event is with which they're associated. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Isle of Wight Council election, 2013, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conservative Party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:48, 5 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello there Redverton; I've commented on the Talk:Muammar Gaddafi page regarding his date of birth, if you'd be interested in contributing. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Greetings Redverton, I have reverted your change on the article Supercentanarian. According to me, the photo was much notable as there is not even a single photo available there. The photo was clicked by me.

Thanks a lot! I am somewhat moved by your comment in my talk page.

Thanks for your kind words. With respect to Manning, my original plan was to get all Premier articles to FA - I started with Ed Stelmach (at the time, the incumbent; the article is now badly out of date and probably shouldn't be featured anymore), almost by accident, and then started to proceed through them chronologically (hence Alexander Cameron Rutherford, Arthur Sifton, Charles Stewart (Canadian politician), Herbert Greenfield, John Edward Brownlee, and Richard Gavin Reid). Theoretically, Aberhart should be next, followed by Manning. The thing is that Aberhart's going to be a huge job, and, like Brownlee, will require multiple articles per WP:TOOBIG (even though Aberhart served far less time than Manning, he's been the subject of much more coverage, probably because he was so fascinating a character). I've gotten started on the first of these articles at User:Steve Smith/Aberhart early life, but, as you can see by my contributions, I haven't been devoting a lot of time to Wikipedia for the past couple of years.

If I ever get through Aberhart, Manning will be next, but there's surprisingly little coverage of him - the Brennan book's the only book-length biography of him (unless something's been published quite recently - at the same time as I stopped spending much time on Wikipedia, I stopped paying a lot of attention to new publications on Alberta political history), and it's not exactly a weighty tome. Steve Smith (talk) 00:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

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) 16:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your contributions. I wanted you to know that "party4" is very inaccurate, because the NDP was the third party in 2007 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_general_election,_2007). In Ontario's 2011 election page, and other pages (Ontario general election, 2011, etc.) put NDP as "party3", so my edit is valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.236.71 (talk) 01:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Why are you including this information in the infobox for US governmental posts? It's almost completely irrelevant and just a distraction from relevant data. People care that somebody was Secretary of the Treasury, not that they were the 45th or 78th or 4th or whatever person to hold it. Infoboxes should be focused on relevant data, not all data. In fact, this kind of information is so trivial as to not even be worth mentioning in the article. And lastly, while a minor footnote, it's bad for machine reading the "office" field, as now a bunch of simple equality comparisons become complex - this extra data needs to be stripped out to see that two people were both Chair of the Federal Reserve, when before they had the exact same "office" field. Which is correct: they held the same office.

Can you please either revert yourself, or explain yourself? I realize that another editor went around and foolishly added these recently... and ignored talk page comments to stop.... but that isn't a good reason to keep them. SnowFire (talk) 22:23, 14 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Because it's been standard for years to include office orders where appropriate, from presidents to governors to cabinet members. The articles concerned did have the office orders, until the user you mentioned started removing them without discussion, so I'm reverting to the original format. I'm happy to have a big debate with as wide a range of users as possible to see whether we want to change this consensus, if only because I'm hoping it will give the user concerned a chance to air his views and hopefully stick with whatever view is reached. Redverton (talk) 22:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

We're talking about different people, I suspect, as I believe this data was added (not removed) only ~6 months or so ag by an unknown IP address (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=G._William_Miller&diff=prev&oldid=730933448 ). I don't believe it actually was standard to do this beforehand, except for perhaps President, and even then, the order field on the infobox was used. I guess that's what you mean by "appropriate" though. Nobody nobody nobody cares or keeps track of this other than for President, at least for US office holders, so it's basically never appropriate IMO. Would Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Politics and government be a better place for this discussion? Or some other talk page to recommend? SnowFire (talk) 22:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. My guess is WP Politics is probably more active, so more appropriate, but that's just a guess. It's been a long time since I looked up Wiki bureaucracy, but I assume RfC's are still the thing? Would seem appropriate, considering we're talking about a lot of pages we might potentially be changing. After all, if you look beyond presidents to governors and cabinet officials, you'll see office orders are predominant. However, you make a good point about the 'order' field. Those were the thing back in the day, but almost single-handedly the user I mentioned combined 'office' and 'order' fields by moving the office order to the office field and completing removing the order field. He's been at this for a good few years, so gone through many pages. However, point is, I don't actually mind what consensus is reached - whether for or against office orders - but it is important we decide, once and for all, what common standard all pages should be using. Redverton (talk) 22:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Furthermore, I've reverted all my changes. Since we're going to have a discussion, I have reversed all what I had done in the meantime. Redverton (talk) 23:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Sounds fair enough. An RFC to settle the issue once and for all sounds fine; maybe you're right and then you can cite it. :) I'll try and set one up later tonight, or possibly tomorrow if delayed. WP:POLITICS sounds good to me. SnowFire (talk) 23:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Maybe an idea might be that we touch base the other side of the Christmas holidays to do it? I remember reading somewhere how RfCs this close to the holidays tend to die a death. Until we have that discussion, I'll hold off on any more business regarding office orders. Sounds like a plan? Redverton (talk) 23:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Sounds good to me. To be continued in early January. :) SnowFire (talk) 15:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Sounds good. :) Happy holidays! Redverton (talk) 19:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)Reply