User talk:Scribetastic

Welcome!

Hi Scribetastic! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 07:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Current members of the U.S. House of Representatives

Sorry about the reversion and multiple edits to the article. I had spent a half hour making the numerous edits necessitated by Congressman Hastings's death (including citation to a reliable source, substitution of his entry with a "vacancy" placeholder, etc.), but it wouldn't go through because of edits that were made to the article during such half hour (including your edit). I then reverted those edits so that my more complete update could go through, but, lo and behold, the "editing conflict" had erased most of my edits from the page that I submitted. I hit "back" to be able to access such edits, with the apparent effect of inadvertently resubmitting some changes (this was all on my iPhone, which made it hard to see what was going on). But I finally was able to reach the page on which I had made the complete updates and I copied the whole page and replaced the current version, so the article is now fully updated. So I apologize for all that, and I think that the article is now fully updated (if I missed something, please take a crack at it). Cheers, AuH2ORepublican (talk) 15:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 California gubernatorial recall election

Please stop using California SoS website for recall results. We are already using The New York Times as a source as is visible from ut being linked in the Results section. And btw SoS is usually slow to update and does not report the % of votes counted or left. So it's not a useful source. The reporting of votes is coming from NY Times, so it makes sense to use it for overall results as well since it's usually faster to update. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 09:54, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand which source is the more authoritative? You shouldn't discount it just because you're unable to navigate the website. The NYTimes often has wrong information (like the percent reporting statistic). The SoS has uncounted ballot reports, amongst other statistics. I'll link the SoS site. Scribetastic (talk) 13:43, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Official sources can be incorrect too. NYTimes results are actually from Associated Press, not NY Times. Also SoS is not showing the no of votes counted. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 14:21, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you think the AP draws their numbers from? When the results are officiated in about a month, the results, as shown on the SoS site, will be the only official one. Like a game of telephone, it's better to get the message directly from the source since all humans are prone to err. Besides, why delete the replacement numbers with NYT ones if you're worried about SoS being too slow. Scribetastic (talk) 14:35, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not the SoS because their numbers are ahead of SoS. Probably from observes or from sources involved in counting. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 14:41, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also if you want to talk about official source, the SoS is not involved in counting. It just receives information from those actually holding the election. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 14:42, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The individual County registrars report the numbers. These numbers are then captured by the AP, SoS, etc. You must not be good with numbers if you believe that the SoS is behind the AP on replacement votes.

By the way, do know if there is a single person who officiates the results? Perhaps that person would have a site, as well. Scribetastic (talk) 15:15, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good so it's like I said. I wasn't suggesting AP gets its numbers from SoS, since you claimed it is more of an authority I assumed you thought so. So basically you're confirmng there's no reason to rely on SoS just because it's official. And besides SoS is behind, just compare the current tallies of AP and SoS. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 15:35, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you deft? There are two questions. AP is very behind on the second. The SoS is the chief election official and is the only legitimate report. Scribetastic (talk) 16:31, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's because it hasn't updated since yesterday. Probably taking a break. SoS is a person who gets information, nothing else. She doesn't personally monitor the election. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 16:52, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If NYTimes is too slow/lazy to update all of the info, why use it as the source? They are only getting information too. Scribetastic (talk) 17:00, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sun rose in California only a few hours ago and not everyone can keep doing the same thing 24x7. Besides it's ahead on the 1st question and you know that. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 17:05, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not lol. Piss poor source Scribetastic (talk) 17:08, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

6,984,595 (AP) vs 6,983,950 (SoS). This despite SoS being updated less than 2 hours ago. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 17:17, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is the source you see here for the tables in this section of the article I've linked?: [1]. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 17:23, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What's the first footnote of the entire article? Scribetastic (talk) 17:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2,970,670 {Elder} (SoS) vs 2,849,880 {Elder} (AP). This despite AP having over 12 hours to update. Which one is more egregious: 645 or 120,790? Scribetastic (talk) 17:36, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

645. Because NYT didn't update for over 15 hours. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 17:53, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're delusional. NYTimes is not even the listed source for the first graphic (and for good reason). Scribetastic (talk) 17:56, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even check the link I gave you? Besides SoS isn't listed as a source. It's used for the election date but that's different. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 18:06, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep your comments clean and less scatological when editing the recall page. If you can't help it, there are other pages you can edit where I'd imagine your comments would be more welcome. As it stands, you are being disruptive and I am requesting that you please stop. 174.193.213.220 (talk) 22:45, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe more people should be disruptive. Then, I might not be the only one regularly updating the replacement candidate votes. Scribetastic (talk) 00:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 2021

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2021 California gubernatorial recall election. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

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 and 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. ––FormalDude talk 03:46, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

––FormalDude talk 04:02, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Scribetastic reported by User:FormalDude (Result: ). Thank you. ––FormalDude talk 04:07, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Partial block from 2021 California gubernatorial recall election

You have been blocked from editing certain areas of the encyclopedia for a period of 2 weeks for violations to the 3 revert rule (bright line edit warring rule), by a lot. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

El_C 05:51, 22 September 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) 01:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2022

Regarding 2022 United States House of Representatives elections in Pennsylvania, please do not remove sources en masse for the results without adding a new source. This is contrary to WP:V, which requires inline citations. Saying you're using the state website in an edit summary is not citing a source. Also, the CNN source is being used for projections of results, which you also removed, making every nominee in the article totally unverifiable. The state website is inappropriate at this time because they have yet to publish an estimate of the percent reporting (though you are only being warned for editing without any references at all). Contrary to your claim, the state website is not "more authoritative" until the election is certified because the information is coming from *county* elections offices. The state gets the information from the counties, and so does CNN. CNN often does a better job than the state of compiling partial results from counties. For example, Summer Lee has *more* votes counted on CNN than on the state website because CNN is updating from the counties more frequently. Election administration in the United States is almost entirely handled by counties. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 23:21, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CNN makes frequent mistakes on percentage reporting. They are estimates. The SOS is responsible for overseeing elections and has ultimate authority. The primary source is more appropriate *and* authoritative than a secondary source. This holds true worldwide.

If you are going to micromanage the page, you should make an attempt to update all races. Sloppiness/laziness helps no one. Scribetastic (talk) 08:14, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are insistent on repeating the actions that got you blocked from the California recall election. Lashing out with a personal attack is not appropriate. I spent a lot of time *adding* references to the article. You removed them and didn't add any new references. I update the article as I can but I am under no obligation to clean up your unsourced mess. Insisting on inline citations is not "micromanaging"—it is literally the core content policy of the encyclopedia (WP:V). Refusing to use references and actively removing them is a form of disruptive editing. That is the "sloppy/lazy editing". Edit summaries are not references, this is editing 101. Simply asserting "this holds true worldwide" does not refute the point I made about how elections are administered in Pennsylvania and much of the U.S. As I explained to you, they are only compiling partial reports from counties, just like all other sources. The only authoritative primary sources for partial election results are the county results websites. For elections that span multiple counties, this is largely unworkable. CNN is a reliable source, and they also make projections as to the winners of elections, which the state does not do (another point you have refused to address). ― Tartan357 ^Talk 08:46, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suspension is not the block you portend it to be. You make sloppy/lazy edits. That is not a personal attack. Rather, it is pointing out the reality of your efforts. I would imagine someone so concerned with inline citations would be one to know how to punctuate with quotation marks properly.

May I suggest spending a bit more time updating the races and utilizing proper grammar? Otherwise, I will have to redo the citations *and* update all of the races, again, since you deleted all of the current information. You refuse to address this deletion of information. Scribetastic (talk) 09:26, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your information was unreferenced, and therefore can and should be removed under Wikipedia policy, especially since it replaced properly referenced information. A block is a block, you will see it called that in the template you got, and it is unfortunate you've refused to learn your lesson from that experience. I choose to follow Wikipedia's policy on punctuating quotations, WP:LQ, which was set by community consensus. Your failure to indent this conversation properly makes that attempted slam a bit ironic. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 09:37, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You've spent more time on Wikipedia than in academia. Otherwise, you might be able to relish the irony of caring about indented responses when you type [That is "sloppy/lazy editing".].

I will reference updated results. Will you put in the effort to provide concurrent information, or is updating your page with more "badges" more pertinent? I'm interested to see how you will choose to use your energy. Scribetastic (talk) 09:52, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a battleground, nor is it Reddit or Twitter. Trolling is not what we do here. Chill. No one will bother you if you are civil and edit with references. WP:LQ is a community endorsed guideline, so that's a pretty weak attempt at a personal attack. I have made ten times more edits than you, which more than makes up for me having a user page. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 09:59, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This conversation is a battleground only in your mind. One that you initiated with condescension. The misuse of quotation marks being a community-endorsed guideline is one of many reasons that Wikipedia is not considered to be a valid source for academia or any professional work. Criticizing your punctuation is not a personal attack. You are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. Why not use this energy to update the page? I think you have incorrectly identified the troll here. Scribetastic (talk) 10:20, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unverifiable information added by editors like you is why Wikipedia is considered unreliable in those circles, not because of this weird fixation you have with using a particular quotation style. I have been updating the page and would much rather be doing that, but since you chose to remove all the references and are vowing to do so again, I'm stuck engaging in this mind-numbing conversation. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 10:23, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Replacing references with stronger references is not removing them. At least respond to what has been written. You updated *one* race and didn't bother trying to do the other sixteen last time you edited. It's a shame that Wikipedia has made these conversations mandatory. Scribetastic (talk) 17:13, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't replace them with any references at all. I'm referring to this edit and the ones that followed, which clearly removed the results source without adding a new one. As for this, I appreciate you properly updating the article. The percent reporting is a journalistic estimate based on numbers from multiple counties and is something the state website has yet to provide. It is entirely reasonable that it would drop if a county announces they have more outstanding votes to count than expected, something that is frequently reported in the news. It's important to show so readers know votes are still being counted. I encourage you to check out this article if you want to learn about the journalistic work CNN puts into estimating how complete results are and making projections; it's actually pretty interesting: It's not magic, it's math. Here's how CNN makes election projections. The Associated Press and Fox News also have reputable projection desks. Some other sources, such as the NYT, rely on projections made by the AP. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 20:01, 22 May 2022 (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) 01:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 2023

Hello, I'm Blaze Wolf. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, New Mexico, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:59, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Nebraska, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:01, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Idaho, you may be blocked from editing. Please stop adding estimates without sources to back them up. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:05, 9 January 2023 (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) 01:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delegates

Hello. Why do you keep deleting "0" from the delegate count, in the ongoing primaries? GoodDay (talk) 03:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are talking about the race in Virginia. The delegates have not been all assigned, so the placeholder is blank until then. (Haley will likely get some delegates from Virginia, so a "0" might be misleading.) Scribetastic (talk) 03:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it changes, we can always update it. Won't hurt to have it "0" for now, as the primary has closed. GoodDay (talk) 03:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please use edit summaries

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Mikeblas (talk) 21:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maryland election results

Hey, thanks for keeping the numbers updated on the 2024 United States Senate election in Maryland and 2024 United States House of Representatives elections in Maryland pages! Just wanted to let you know that the state requires counties to certify their election results by the end of the day today, so you may want to wait until then before updating the numbers again. Cheers! Y2hyaXM (talk) 16:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is a fantastic heads-up. Thank you :) Scribetastic (talk) 17:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~It looks like certification in Baltimore City is now delayed until Tuesday, so we'll be waiting a little while longer :(~~ Scratch that, it looks like all votes were counted, they just delayed certification until Tuesday. Now we're just waiting on Montgomery County. Y2hyaXM (talk) 21:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

You may want to read what WP:Vandalism actually is before accusing people of it, Secondly which part of User_talk:Scribetastic#Please_use_edit_summaries do you not understand ?, Had you used the edit summary box provided explaining what you changed and why chances are you wouldn't have been reverted. –Davey2010^Talk 13:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, maybe not. But the "good faith" required for non-vandalism is debatably present here given the weeks of similar edits made without reversion. I imagine you did act in good faith, but WP:Vandalism is broader than you think.

What part of edit summaries not being required do you not understand? The concensus is that an edit summary should be included "unless the reason for [the edit] is obvious." Scribetastic (talk) 13:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you can doesn't mean you should, I prefer telling my fellow colleagues what I'm doing even if it's blatantly obvious but I guess each to their own, Have a great day, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 13:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The edit summaries for these types of edits are particularly helpful, since the edit difference usually does not reveal which states are being updated. In other words, the reason for the edit is obvious, but the content is not. When there is no edit summary, I often resort to flipping between a before and after copy to figure out which states changed. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 14:58, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]