User talk:IOnlyKnowFiveWords

United States presidential election, 2020

You reverted my edit regarding Oprah not being listed under the GOP list of potential candidates, citing a CNN/SSRS poll purportedly showing her reaching 1% support amongst likely GOP voters, which is "more than Ted Cruz, Mitt Romney, ..." etc. I looked up the poll and this is false. She was listed as "Oprah Winfrey, the Democrat" and it was not for a GOP primary, it was for a general election against Trump. Please cite your source next time.

Source: http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2018/images/01/23/rel1e.-.2020.pdf

@TheBaronDe: It's funny that you ask me to cite my sources when the source is literally cited right on the actual page, next to Winfrey's name. It's ref number 73 and it's actually THIS poll from March, not the one you cited from January. She shows up on page 5/14, it is question number 22 and reads as follows:

"While we know it is early and most candidates have not announced their candidacies yet, which candidate in particular would you prefer to see the Republican Party nominate for president instead of Donald Trump in 2020?"

Oprah Winfrey is listed with 1% support, below Ted Cruz and above Trey Gowdy, both with 1% as well. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 12:20, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

United States presidential election, 2020

You recently added polling info for declined candidates. Can you explain how this is helpful? Brian Everlasting (talk) 14:58, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously don't understand the argument that polls including declined candidates should be disregarded. People change their minds. John Kasich, Mark Cuban, and Joe Biden have both gone back and forth on whether or not they would run just in the last six months. Cory Booker and Andrew Cuomo have "declined" by saying they'll focus on their respective reelection campaigns. As I've already explained on the talk page: In 2013, early general election polls for 2016 included Joe Biden, Andrew Cuomo, Howard Dean, John Kerry, Elizabeth Warren, Sarah Palin, and Paul Ryan. Polls are useful information, period. They should not be excluded just because they feature a likely speculative candidate that has declined three and a half years before the election. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 15:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the candidates are worth considering they shouldn't be classified as 'declined', they should be speculative. A candidate shouldn't be on both 'declined' and polls at the same time. Brian Everlasting (talk) 16:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to whom? This is the way it's always been done. These are hypothetical polls. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 16:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

United states election 2020

You recently reverted one of my edits stating i misread the rules.

This is what the rules say:

   ===Candidates who have publicly expressed interest===
   Candidates in this section have expressed an interest in running for President within the last six months.
   ***Candidates in this section only need one source
   ***Sources in this section can go back a maximum of six months
   ***Sources should be from after the 2016 Presidential Election
   ***Candidates in this section should not have expressed interest via social media

I read the rules correctly. Candidates who have publicly expressed interest only need one source. Crewcamel (talk) 01:52, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be omitting the part where it says that they should have between 1 and 3 sources...

   ===Candidates who have publicly expressed interest===
   Candidates in this section have expressed an interest in running for President within the last six months.
   ***Candidates in this section only need one source
   ***Sources in this section can go back a maximum of six months
   ***Sources should be from after the 2016 Presidential Election
   ***There should be one to three sources for a potential candidate
   ***Candidates in this section should not have expressed interest via social media

It specifies that the section "only needs" 1 source, since the other sections require at least 2. I see no point in removing sources that aren't excessive (3 is certainly not excessive by the way, since most candidates on the page already have 3). IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 02:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are now an extended confirmed user

Hi IOnlyKnowFiveWords. If you haven't noticed, you have become an extended confirmed user, as you have made at least 500 edits, and your account is older than 30 days. This grants you to edit pages with extended confirmed protection. Happy Editing! Also congratulations on making 500 edits! Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} If you reply here, please ping me by using {{re|Ks0stm}} in your reply. 02:22, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ref issue

I have fixed the issue you raised here. I went to the template's talk page for help. Here is the response I got. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 21:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm not super well-versed in Wikipedia language. I learn as I go, I suppose. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 21:35, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:1RR warning

Hey, WP:1RR applies to the United States presidential election, 2020 article so please remember to not do more than one revert within 24 hours. Prcc27 (talk) 04:37, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Petraeus

I have reverted your edit to the David Petraeus page (Revision 807481460), but not without valid reasons. In the citation for his political party he is quoted as saying "I'm completely non-partisan."

Futhermore he is quoted in an interview in December 2016 saying that he doesn't vote at all.^[1]

InitiatedCall (talk) 16:44, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/308673-petraeus-says-he-did-not-cast-a-ballot-in-election

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, IOnlyKnowFiveWords. 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)[reply]

Kanye West endorsements

Hi IOnlyKnowFiveWords, I think the Kanye West endorsements made after his VMAs speech should be reinstated, because he said "I have decided in 2020 to run for president." ([1]) So any individuals or organizations that endorsed him were endorsing him for 2020, why assume they changed their minds after the 2016 election if they already knew who the candidates would be in 2015. --Theo (contribs) 21:44, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because our consensus for the article when it comes to sources for speculation, polls, endorsements, etc. is that it must come from after the 2016 election. There's also just the issue that West is very likely to not actually run (he even mentioned something about 2024 instead). He hasn't filed with the FEC, he's only made I believe one other public statement about the 2020 race, and we don't even know his political party. I think it'd be safe to say he'd be a satirical candidate like Vincente Fox, Stephen Colbert, or Waka Flocka Flame unless he actually takes steps to legitimize his campaign. And regardless, a lot of those "endorsements" were really weak. JT just said "Kanye is so cute, y'all." how is that a political endorsement in the slightest? IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 22:44, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I didn't know you had made that consensus, but comparing Kanye to Vincente Fox, who is just plain ineligible or Stephen Colbert, who is a satirical candidate (I don't know anything about Waka Flocka Flame's campaign) is not consistent with what reliable sources on the internet say or Kanye's attitude towards running. Three U.S. Presidents have had something to say about him running ([2], [3]), The Telegraph also reports the Democrats tweeted that they wish him luck when he enters the race as one of their candidates and illustrated most of their tweets after with Kanye gifs and noted that his net worth is higher than Hillary Clinton's by at least $100 million (all here [4]). Most of the endorsement tweets, including JT's tweet where from a website article called "Celebs Who Are Definitely Voting Kanye 2020" or something, but I wasn't sure the website was reliable (looked like it was written for teen girls) so sourced the tweets directly instead. My point is whenever you make any edits to the 2020 election article related to West or his own article in the future you shouldn't let your view that his run for President is "satirical" affect how the articles look. Thanks, --Theo (contribs) 01:21, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 2018

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on United States presidential election, 2020. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Amortias (T)(C) 21:37, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions

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.

Florida gubernatorial election

No other gubernatorial election Wikipedia page as a biography under the parties so Florida will not be any different. Secondly you can’t only put one up you could of at least put up both at the same time. Thirdly you should not be using one source to label a candidate such as a moderate or a Washington insider those aren’t widely held labels and are disputed and shouldn’t be used. Zzannoni1956 (talk) 20:13, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

United States House of Representatives elections, 1996

About this edit, to say "I asked the Wells for President 2020 campaign and they confirmed that this Robert Wells is the same Robert Wells that I linked here" explicitly violates WP:No original research. Can you find a better source?—GoldRingChip 10:55, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldRingChip: Ah damn, you're right. I wasn't really thinking about that. The only reason I did that was because I'm working on the 2020 presidential election page and Wells is running in that race, so I went to the FEC website to get his filing data for 2020 and found that there's another set of files for "Robert Wells" from 1996. You can see them (and his last presidential run) here. I wasn't (and still aren't, really) sure how else to verify that they're the same person, so I shot a message to Wells 2020 and they got back to me saying that that was him. Would the FEC link count for anything? IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 22:26, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It kills me to leave something out because of the WP:OR rule, but I accept the rule and leave it that way. THe best strategy is usually just to say, "it's unclear whether" or "possibly the same person" and add "{{Data missing}}".—GoldRingChip 14:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

United States presidential election, 2020

In response to your edit description regarding Roseanne Barr's home state, it seems you are correct in that the amended versions of her candidate FEC filings indicate an address in Georgia. Both the home address as well as the committee's address are located at a mail center in a shopping plaza. Her original filing from Jan 27, 2012 (when she declared her intent to seek the Green Party's nomination) indicates an address in California -- another mail center in El Segundo. Are home states as listed in the 2012 presidential election article based solely on address on the most recent FEC filing? For reference, the address listed on Gary Johnson's FEC filings in 2016 is in Salt Lake City, Utah, but on further inspection, every incidence on Wikipedia related to the topic lists Johnson's home state as New Mexico. GEORGIAN ^{Go Dogs} 04:06, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for any other article other than the 2020 one, as I've never worked on any other presidential election page. If I had to guess, Johnson's home state is New Mexico and not Utah because he was an office holder in the former and not the latter. As the former governor of a state, I think it makes sense to have him be associated with that state, even if he may live somewhere else now. Mitt Romney is the former governor of Massachusetts, for example, but is also running for the open Senate seat in Utah (which he is extremely likely to win in November), so I'd probably argue that until he were to win that Senate seat, his "home state" ought to be Massachusetts. Since Barr has never held public office before, I think the best way to go about the "home state" issue would be to list the state of address of the most recent previous campaign (in this case: Atlanta, Georgia for the 2012 presidential election). We do this for other people who've run campaigns before. Jeff Boss is from New York, since his most recent campaign was for the U.S. House from Manhattan, even though he's commonly associated with several New Jersey races. Rocky De La Fuente is "from" Florida (the guy's running for four different Senate seats this year: California, Florida, Washington, and Wyoming. Florida's primary election occurs last among those four), even though he's also run for Mayor of New York City in the past, et cetera. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 00:21, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:11, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BLP

Please stop adding categories to articles, especially biographies of living people, for which there is no claim or source in the article. It violates WP:BLP.--TM 15:25, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018

Hello, I'm Namiba. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Aung San Suu Kyi, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! TM 01:37, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ContraPoints

I've reverted you twice now. None of the provided sources call her "Natalie Wynn Parrott". Adding "Parrott" onto the end of her current name seems like it would count as WP:OR. Please make sure to read the edit history before re-doing an edit. Thanks. --ChiveFungi (talk) 02:29, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Both sources refer to ContraPoints as "Natalie Parrott," before using her screen name for the remainder of the articles. Did you... read them? Like, it's in their first paragraphs.

"Contra, who recently changed her name from the one she was born with to Natalie Parrott (I'll just call her Contra in this piece), got an early start on YouTube, making videos about atheism back in 2008 and 2009, when the online atheist scene was the locus of some of the web's most passionate politics." in NYMag.

and then:

"ContraPoints, as Natalie Parrott is known online, is a 29-year-old lefty trans woman (she calls herself a 'pessimistic Socialist') from Baltimore." in The Stranger.

Plus there's:

"Natalie Parrott aka ContraPoints in 'Decrypting the Alt-Right'"

as the description of the photo. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 02:54, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the sources. None of them say that "Natalie Wynn Parrott" is her name. You can't just guess what somebody's name is based on a mixture of sources that say "Natalie Wynn" and sources that say "Natalie Parrott". That's WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, or something along those lines.

I'll also note that the more recent sources call her Natalie Wynn, and the older sources call her Natalie Parrott. So it seems pretty obvious to me that she's changed her surname from Parrott to Wynn.

Thanks. --ChiveFungi (talk) 13:23, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Accidentally removed state campaigns

Hello, thanks for the update on DSA Election results. You accidentally removed several PA and NY state victories, I’m on mobile now otherwise I’d re-add them. Shushugah (talk) 08:48, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018

Your recent editing history at David Dinkins shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. O3000 (talk) 13:53, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know many more than five words

If big words confuse you, consider using a dictionary. Please re-read my comments at Talk:David Dinkins#DSA membership and do not edit war to restore the same nonsense again until you at least pretend that you intend to address my concerns. If you don't understand the words I used, please say so; I'll try to rewrite them so that even a person who only knows five words can understand. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:09, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, IOnlyKnowFiveWords. 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)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Delaney (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:13, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An invitation to discussion

I kindly invited you to the discussion on Template talk:Infobox election#The Bolding issue to decide whether to bold the winner in the election infobox. Lmmnhn (talk) 19:03, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Jackson

In July of last year, we discussed whether Lawrence Jackson, the former football player, is the same person who filed a declaration of candidacy for President. After 6 months, I still haven't found any real evidence that they are the same. The Twitter account which you said once referred to him as a "2020 presidential candidate" not only stopped being verified, it shut down altogether (see https://twitter.com/lojackson94). And there have been no posts to the blog since July 6, 2018 (the last one being about his then-upcoming wedding), and the blog doesn't mention anything about running for President anyway. I've removed Jackson from Third-party and independent candidates for the 2020 United States presidential election because I honestly think that it must have been a different person who filed the declaration of candidacy. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:36, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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) 02:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Cabayi (talk) 10:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Only add albums to navigational templates that HAVE articles

You have been reverted for adding albums that don't have articles to Template:King Gizzard and the Lizard Wizard previously, so please stop and read what I've pointed out to you. Per WP:EXISTING, navigational templates are for existing articles. They don't serve as a discography for King Gizzard, or any other artist there is a template for. Write the article first, per WP:WTAF, then add the link. Thank you. Ss112 00:02, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 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) 00:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/308673-petraeus-says-he-did-not-cast-a-ballot-in-election

[1]