Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:12, 12 June 2020

Hello Smith0124! Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! StonyBrook (talk) 12:32, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Its a talk page, stop reading this and go talk! Yeah, I'm talking to you! Stop reading the TALK page!

Removal of candidates from Template:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries

 Undone Hi. I reverted your removal of Klobuchar and Gabbard from the infobox. I’d like you to know that I’m inclined to agree with you that they can hardly be considered major contenders looking back at the primaries. However, many people have disputed the neutrality of the infobox for not including all candidates who won delegates. There is an RFC and a corresponding warning not to remove candidates. Because of this, I believe we should err on the side of including all candidates who won delegates for the time being. Due to the extremely high visibility of this article, I’m sure the issue will be settled. I encourage you to add to the discussion on the talk page. It’s likely, as has been the case in past elections (like the one you cited), that some candidates will be removed without controversy once the election formally concludes. Until then, however, the neutrality of the infobox is likely to remain disputed. Your patience would be greatly appreciated and would help avoid ill will between editors. Thanks. Tartan357 (talk) 21:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@Tartan357: It's been weeks since the request for close on that Rfc, and no close. 04:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Smith0124: True, but that is because the debate is ongoing. There haven't been many recent entries, but the inclusion of candidates remains controversial, which is why the template message about the infobox's neutrality is still up. It will be easier to agree on the removal of candidates after the election has formally concluded. Until then, or until there is major progress on the talk page, we should err on the side of presenting the maximum amount of information. Voting on the criteria for inclusion in the infobox was generally inconclusive, and I would say that no consensus has been formed. Upon reviewing the discussion, however, it seems that a majority of people prefer leaving the candidates up in the interim. I did not participate in the discussion at the time, but I see that you were the user who initiated the closure request. Given that there still seems to be considerable disagreement, you should avoid seeing through your own closure request simply because it's taking a while to be decided. I know it's taking a while and understand your frustration, but this is a very important article, and we should not be cutting out large amounts of information from the infobox in the absence of a consensus. I'm attempting to be neutral here by simply leaving the infobox as is until a consensus can be reached. I'd like to add that I do believe you are acting in good faith, and this is one of the lengthiest RFCs that I've seen. Tartan357 (talk) 06:50, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

What do you believe the harm is in keeping Klobuchar and Gabbard up from now? I think the map covered in blue states makes it very clear to readers that Biden has dominated the primaries. Tartan357 (talk) 06:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Tartan357: It’s contrary to the standard of only candidates who won a state or got >5% of the vote that is used for every other election page, especially when it comes to Gabbard, who wasn’t ever even a major candidate. Klobuchar I can kind of understand but there are candidates not there who are more important than Gabbard. She just happened to be the most stubborn when it came to dropping out. Point is, the infobox violates current Misplaced Pages standards. Smith0124 (talk) 07:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Smith0124: Speaking frankly, I agree that Gabbard was a joke of a candidate, even from the beginning. I think an argument can be made for Klobuchar being a real contender, like you said. I think it’s a very good idea to keep infoboxes consistent across elections. In fact, I spend a lot of my time on that in other areas. However, there’s no official Misplaced Pages standard on infoboxes. If the issue were noncontroversial, yes, we would remove them based on precedent. However, there is a tremendous amount of controversy around this issue, and a very long RFC for it that understandably has not been closed. There may not be recent entries, but that’s probably because people feel that they’ve said all they can. We’ve reached a stalemate here, and Misplaced Pages guidelines recommend preserving the status quo under such circumstances. It’s entirely possible that a new Misplaced Pages standard for primary infoboxes will be set by this election because of the historic size of the field (29 major candidates). I doubt it, though, and I think it will eventually change to what you want to see. From what I’ve seen, people will become more willing to work this out after the election has concluded. Some are still too frustrated with their candidates’ loss to think about this rationally. That’s clearly not an encyclopedic motivation, but whatever the reason, a consensus has definitely not been reached here, and we need to accept that reality. Tartan357 (talk) 22:14, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Tartan357: The request to close is from almost a month ago and there's been no discussion since, so the Rfc needs to be closed. The overwhelming majority of people supported the >5% of delegates or votes or win a state requirement.Smith0124 (talk) 22:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Smith0124: Maybe the RFC should be closed because it is stale. That doesn’t mean we should enact changes, though. I disagree with you that an overwhelming majority supported anything. To me, the whole thing looks very messy and it does not look like a consensus. I think this will remain controversial for some time. You’re welcome to open a new RFC and try to get it sorted out, but it may be an uphill battle until the election is over. And I really do agree with you that Gabbard doesn’t belong there (I think Klobuchar might), but it’s not up to just the two of us right now. Tartan357 (talk) 22:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Edits on Interstate 86 page

Hi. I feel like I am repeating what we discussed a few months ago here. You are making assumptions without any rigorous proof. Just because you don't know of any other project does not mean you can definitively say so. I highly encourage you to read WP:BURDEN about how the burden of proof lies with you when you add content. There are some pages that mention the necessary project to upgrade NY 17 near exit 68 (Old Vestal Road) before it can be converted to an interstate, though many of the articles discussing the needed improvements to Exit 68 are a decade old and are no longer readily available online. If you have found anything that says otherwise, then that would be an excellent source to include when you make these changes. However, without proof, these are (for better or worse) the most recently-available documents, stating that work needs to be done in Broome County after exit 67. As such, I believe that the less absolute wording that I had is correct in either situation, and is appropriate given the level of supporting documentation that is available. Vmanjr (talk) 05:01, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

That first source doesn't mention anything besides "deficient features"; it doesn't mention any specific exits or stretches of roads west in the Tioga County - Binghampton section, and the second source is from 2006; exit 67 has been completely rebuilt since then. Smith0124 (talk) 05:04, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

The first source clearly states that the deficient features are between the Tioga County line and the Binghamton city line, which does not include the Prospect Mountain interchange (which comes after the city line). Furthermore, Exit 67 has not completely been rebuilt since 2006 (and in fact has not been modified in any way aside from paving). As a long-time resident of the area and an avid road enthusiast, I am well aware of the fact that it has not changed, and I can prove that with satellite images. You really need to be more factual when you are editing an encyclopedia. I don't say this to discourage you, but it's important to make sure that things are correct, which is why Misplaced Pages has such a heavy reliance on sources. On an unrelated note, if you're going to edit an article about a major highway in Binghamton, please spell it correctly. Vmanjr (talk) 05:09, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

A source from 2006 just isn't valid anymore. That's 14 years ago. And the page is probably saying the eastern city line, as Prospect Mountain isn't even mentioned (which calls into question the reliability of this source, but whatever). Smith0124 (talk) 05:14, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

See, you keep making conjectures again ("probably"). First off, the page clearly includes the Prospect Mountain project (quoting directly from the Current Projects section, "Reconstruction of the I-81 interchange/Kamikaze Curve (Phase I)" and "Reconstruction of the I-81 interchange/Kamikaze Curve (Phase II) and I-81 exit 4"), so your baseless claim about its reliability is wrong. Second, the page includes an official NYSDOT map dated January 2015, which clearly shows that the segment from exits 67 through 72 still need improvement. Third, the page is maintained by an NYSDOT employee (you can see their employment status mentioned on several public forums). At the least, as of 2015 (a perfectly recent source given the lack of more recent announcements), there is still a need to upgrade portions of the highway in Broome County aside from Prospect Mountain. Vmanjr (talk) 05:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't see that, my apologies, but its still vague and doesn't mention exit 67 specifically. The only mention of exit 67 is from 14 years ago, the map just says 67-72, also vague. Smith0124 (talk) 05:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Which is exactly why I have not edited the article to include specific mention of the work left to be done in that area. I can sure connect the dots between the press release and the 2015 map showing the very same area discussed by the press release as still needing improvement, but Misplaced Pages is not a place for original research. Therefore, unless you can with certainty prove that the project has been completed and no longer needs improvement, I suggest that we go back to the version that I had, which does not make it sound like Prospect Mountain is absolutely the only project left. That reminds me - please make sure to go over WP:MINOR, as you are marking edits as minor when they are actually not considered to be minor under Misplaced Pages policy. It may seem ridiculous at first, but the article explains why it's important to restrict the usage of what a "minor edit" is (and it's something I had to learn along the way when I was first editing myself). Vmanjr (talk) 05:32, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I will read the minor edit thing, thank you. However, I feel that the NYSDOT signage is the only real evidence we have, and that suggests that Prospect Mountain is all there's left. NYSDOT has put up the signs, and Prospect Mountain is wrapping up, so it's highly unlikely that there's anything left. That's not original research, that's just following NYSDOT. Smith0124 (talk) 05:35, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

It is original research, actually, as you are making assumptions based on your own observations, and not scholarly sources. DOTs often put up erroneous signs, or forget to cover signs before changes take place. The only authority that can declare a highway an Interstate is the FHWA, and such declarations happen only at regular AASHTO meetings when filed by the state DOTs. NYSDOT has to date not filed anything requesting an upgrade on that segment. Furthermore, you do not have any way to guarantee that the signs were not done before subsequent construction that may be programmed. This has happened (see Orange County and its I-86 signs), as sign replacements are expensive, and it can be more cost-effective to consolidate I-86 sign postings with other replacement projects. I have no idea whether this is or is not the case, but it's not the job of an encyclopedia to guess. Even if it's "highly unlikely" as you say, unless it's completely ruled out by official press releases, articles, documents, or correspondence, then the encyclopedia cannot state it. Vmanjr (talk) 05:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, the encyclopedia can't say that there are more projects needed, as there's even less evidence of that. Btw, this is really interesting! Smith0124 (talk) 05:52, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Glad that it is :-) I agree that the encyclopedia can't say that there are more projects needed, but it also cannot definitively say that the designation will take place as soon as Prospect Mountain is done. I chose my rewording in that article carefully to make sure that it did neither of those, but made it clear that Prospect Mountain is indeed an impediment to the designation. This way, there is nothing speculative about how soon the designation can take place (since it's clear we don't have enough public information). Do you agree? Vmanjr (talk) 05:57, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Sure, cause its 1am and I really want to go to bed. If that's the way you feel is best, I won't touch it. Smith0124 (talk) 05:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Haha okay. Sounds good. Vmanjr (talk) 06:01, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Election articles

Election articles are not meant to just provide the "current state" of the race, but a historical overview. Every election article on Misplaced Pages provides all polling related to the race. If you disagree with this, I suggest you do a very wide RFC as you are talking about changes to literally thousands of articles which have this information. 331dot (talk) 00:05, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@331dot: Why is there a need to include all those hypothetical polls? As I said most of them are completely irrelevant to any part of the race at any time. Like including candidates that nobody knows who aren’t running, and these “generic opponent” polls. It’s way too much detail. Also, as a general note, that entire article is a total mess. The background section is poorly written, and until my recent edit the primary elections were all bunched into one section. The article is very hard to read and it’s neutrality is rightfully being investigated. Smith0124 (talk) 00:27, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm only concerned with the removal of the polls at this moment and your reason seems to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Misplaced Pages articles are meant to provide an entire overview of the subject. Polls provide insight as to where the state of the race was at the time of the poll, and/or the strength of the candidate. They help readers now and in the future. As I said, this is done on thousands of articles and not just for US elections. Some polling is so extensive it has it own article(Opinion polling for the 2019 United Kingdom general election). Elections that don't even have firm dates have such articles(Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election). This is why I've said that if you want to see polls reduced or eliminated, you should begin a very wide Request for Comment as thousands of articles are this way. 331dot (talk) 00:42, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@331dot: Please explain to me why polling for Jim Grey in Kentucky or Susan Rice in Maine is relevant. They never ran for the office and nobody knows who they are. That’s like if I put up a poll: Susan Collins vs Smith0124. Smith0124 (talk) 00:44, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Rice considered running for Senate and polls were done to gauge interest. That's important for any historical overview. Susan Rice was National Security Advisor so I doubt "nobody knows who they are". All I'm saying is that you need to gain consensus for this as well as what criteria there should be for including a poll so it can be done across numerous election articles. 331dot (talk) 01:12, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Well I know that Jim Gray was the mayor of Lexington but I don’t think 99% of people know that, and that’s not nearly as important as a national cabinet position. And why the generic opponent polls? Smith0124 (talk) 01:49, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Generic opponent polls are a common way to gauge the strength of a candidate. If Senator John Doe of the X Party does not poll well against an opponent from the Y Party, even without knowing who the opponent is, they are in trouble(or vice versa, if they do, they aren't). 331dot (talk) 08:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@331dot: In theory that should be true, but as reflected in every single poll of that sort, most people answer undecided because it’s just too vague and “generic opponent” just doesn’t do it for them. This makes these polls completely pointless and not an accurate representation of the personal strength of the candidate. Smith0124 (talk) 08:11, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

You are certainly entitled to your opinion(I obviously take the opposite view, as do many candidates and pollsters) and that sort of thing is something you can bring up when attempting to gain a consensus for what you want to do. 331dot (talk) 08:14, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@331dot: How does 70-80% undecided help give an idea of the personal strength of the candidate? Smith0124 (talk) 08:16, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

What people don't know is just as important as what people know. If they don't know if they like a candidate when put against just "a member of the other party", that doesn't really bode well for the candidate, either. I'm watching this page, no need to ping me. 331dot (talk) 08:20, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry about the pings. To your point, I don’t think that’s reflected in overwhelmingly undecided. I think that would be reflected in the incumbent versus a generic Democrat/Republican. I think when most people are asked about generic opponent they say undecided because they have no idea who this opponent could be or their beliefs. At least when it’s a generic partisan opponent people have more of an idea. Smith0124 (talk) 08:26, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

No apology for the pings is necessary, just giving information which you would have no way to know otherwise. People generally know the beliefs of, say, the Democratic Party as a whole or the Republican Party as a whole, or at least their own idea of them. You can certainly have any opinion you wish about any poll- that's what you use to evaluate the validity of the information. That's why the information should be provided, so all readers can do that for themselves. 331dot (talk) 08:33, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I still think polls without a clear purpose don’t need to be there. Can we at least agree that Jim Gray isn’t well known enough to have hypothetical polling and that polls from before the 2018 midterms are outdated? Not only outdated, but way too long before the election to be sufficient polls. Smith0124 (talk) 08:36, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I know little about local Kentucky politics, so I will leave you alone there, but I still encourage you to discuss this with editors that follow that article much more closely than I do. The 2018 midterms are not relevant to the state of a 2020 US Senate race, for which polling started not too long after 2014.(Note that polling for the "next" UK general election started not long after the 2019 election). 331dot (talk) 08:41, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I only know about Jim Gray because my grandparents live in Lexington and we talk politics. I honestly don’t think anyone who doesn’t live there knows who he is. I’ll watch the talk page in case of any objections. And polling from 2017 just is too early; people don’t know who will run and it makes incumbents look stronger than they might actually be. Smith0124 (talk) 08:47, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Let's not go deleting content after multiple reverts. Especially since you aren't addressing the issue in Talk:2020 United States Senate election in Kentucky. There's no way of knowing a discussion is happening if it's only happening here. The Jim Grey polls are important as a data point for this race. You can't arbitrarily decide that just because he's a relative unknown don't know him that the poll is irrelevant. This poll, at the *very least*, holds the same weight as one with "Generic Democrat." It was conducted in 2019. It's a data point for this election. TheSavageNorwegian 04:00, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

• No, it isn't my personal page, and neither is it yours. You need a consensus for your change, which you haven't established. I would request that you self revert so you can discuss this on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 19:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Accessibility dos and don'ts

"The previous way was completely unreadable. Also, this is a rule constantly broken on election articles with the result maps."

That argument is is so often used it's got its own shortcut, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. I think the shortcut name conveys how the argument is regarded.

In any case, we should aim to improve the wiki, not to drag it all down to the lowest level. Party affiliation is widely conveyed by the use of a separate column with the party colour, try 2015 Canadian federal election#Detailed analysis for one example among thousands. It conveys the same information, uses colour to help, and has no accessibility issues.

Happy editing, Cabayi (talk) 06:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

So you are agreeing with me or disagreeing? Smith0124 (talk) 06:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

On the basis of your latest revert and its effect on the candidate list in 2020 United States gubernatorial elections#States, I disagree with your choice. It doesn't comply with MOS:COLOUR. Cabayi (talk) 07:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I just don’t see how any other way would work. The previous format was unreadable. Smith0124 (talk) 07:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Like this. Cabayi (talk) 09:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I LOVE IT!!! Smith0124 (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Funny, that was my reaction when I saw BrownHairedGirl suggesting the colour tabs at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization/Archive 8#Arbitrary break back in 2011. Credit where credit's due. Cabayi (talk) 20:03, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, @Cabayi. Most solutions get supplanted by something better, but that one seems to have stood the test of time. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

It’s brilliant. I think we should do it on 2020 United States Senate elections as well. Smith0124 (talk) 20:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Feel free. On a tangent, if you haven't come across it already, you may want this tool. Cabayi (talk) 20:29, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Great, thanks! Smith0124 (talk) 22:54, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Revert Edits If You Think They Are Vanadlism

If you are going to revert my edits, then revert them so I am alerted. Don't just covertly delete them. Your section is redundant and in my cases factually wrong (e.g. North Carolina as a red state in the twentieth century).--Mpen320 (talk) 20:55, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

North Carolina has only voted for a Democrat for president once in the last 30 years, and until 2018 Republicans had supermajorities in both houses of the legislature. They also have two Republican senators and (due in part to gerrymandering) have a majority Republican congressional delegation. So yes, it is a Red state. And I didn’t try to covertly delete your edits, I couldn’t undo them due to conflicting edits. Smith0124 (talk) 21:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• You clearly didn't read Political party strength in North Carolina. It's been a competitive state for a long time. Prior to the 2011 Republican gerrymandering, you'll notice the Democratic Party had control of it (some of that legacy from a different time). Also, look at how close the margins were for some of those POTUS races. I largely agree with much of your commentary, but it's not encyclopedic (or at least what is encyclopedic should be moved to the sections on the individual states).--Mpen320 (talk) 21:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Plenty of articles have analysis. Look at this year’s Democratic primaries. Everything said is factual and has sources to back it up. Smith0124 (talk) 21:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Respect the AfD

"It doesn’t seem that a consensus was reached on the discussion"? Sandstein closed the AfD with a consensus to redirect. You can see at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Theresa Greenfield that they wrote "Consensus not to keep." Do not do that again. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: It was clearly based on the person’s personal preference, they gave a vague summary of the consensus and people were split. Smith0124 (talk) 22:17, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Please review a notice on Talk:2020 United States Senate elections

Please review a notice on Talk:2020_United_States_Senate_elections#We_Should_Remove_The_Competitive_Races_Subsection about the Competitive Races section as soon as possible.--Mpen320 (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Removal of Candidates who received over 5%

Your removal of candidates who received over 5% is contrary to Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Two part RfC about inclusion criteria for listing candidates in infoboxes. Nothing in that consensus says anything about whether candidates have withdrawn. You claim that a 2017 RfC says that candidates who have withdrawn prior to the final vote are not included, or at least only two are. Do you have a link to that 2017 RfC? I have never heard of any consensus to support what you are now proposing.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't part of that 2017 Rfc bur when I tried to eliminate the second candidate in the 2012 Democratic primary that was the message I got. The RFC you are mentioning is under the assumption that the candidates didn't withdraw. I participated in that. Smith0124 (talk) 21:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that 2017 RfC said you need to include AT LEAST two candidates, not ONLY two. It also said you have to include any candidates in infoboxes that recieve over 5%.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

If a candidate has withdrawn there’s no point putting them in the infobox except to entertain the two candidate rule. Smith0124 (talk) 22:00, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Other than it properly represents what happened in the election. If 10% want to vote for Sanders after he has withdrawn that is still notable, same for the 8% that voted for Warren in Montana or 5.8 in New Mexico. Regardless, the established and long standing consensus is we include them if they receive over 5%.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Again, that consensus was completely under the assumption that the candidates didn’t withdraw and that’s how it’s been interpreted since. Your reasoning is out of sync with the consensus. What happened in the election is that Joe Biden is the only one left, not that it was a three way race. Smith0124 (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

It is not, the consensus was anyone with 5% is in the box: "consensus for part B with the addition of candidates that receive 5% of the vote". That is also the general rule which has always been applied. If you want to point me to some other RfC, feel free to do so, but I don't like the consensus that was reached following a long consultation is not a good reason, to refuse to follow the RfC consensus. There was no consensus for removing withdrawn candidates as you claim.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:28, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

There’s no consensus to include withdrawn candidates whatsoever. It’s standard to not include them, the only reason a second candidate is there is because of the two candidate rule. Smith0124 (talk) 23:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

You keep saying there is consensus to remove candidates from an election infobox, for a past election, if candidates have withdrawn. If you have something to back that up, I am happy to reconsider. But I am not seeing it.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:56, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I can’t remember where to find it. But it does exist, I promise you lol. Smith0124 (talk) 00:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay, perhaps you can find it. Happy to reconsider if you do. As it stands, the two RfCs are pretty clear that candidates that receive 5% are included. That also accords with past contests and elections. As Biden now has enough delegates to clinch the entire contest and is the presumptive nominee there is no reason to hide those candidates who have received significant support. In Iowa we have five in the infobox (four have withdrawn), New Hampshire we have four (three have withdrawn)... we also had others in the infobox at Nevada, South Carolina, Alabama and others, where they were removed very recently contrary to the prior consensus there and the most recent RfC. I will be reversing this.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 16:37, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I did not say you could revert back. I was going to try and find the Rfc. Smith0124 (talk) 19:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

You go ahead and do that. If you want to argue that we should disregard the two other RfCs, the WP:ONUS is very much on you. If you want to change the consensus feel free to open another RfC, but the consensus now is to include any who receive 5%.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Here you go. You’re the one disregarding an Rfc. Why on earth would WITHDRAWN candidates go in the infobox if it’s not to satisfy this rule. Again you’re misinterpreting the 5% Rfc, that was meant for candidates STILL RUNNING. I think you’re the vandal here. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elections_and_Referendums#RfC_on_Infoboxes:_Should_there_always_be_two_candidates? Smith0124 (talk) 19:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Because our job is to summarize the election, and show how people voted. Not erase them. Read the RfCs you are quoting.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:56, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

The summary doesn’t include candidates not even running. You wouldn’t say the current state of the Democratic Primary is a race between Biden, Sanders, and Warren, you’d also not say it’s really between Biden and Sanders but we have to satisfy this dumb rule. The 5% rule doesn’t apply. Smith0124 (talk) 19:57, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

They are on the ballot, they received over 5% of the votes. They are running, and if you want to alter the consensus, start an RfC. As it stands the consensus is against you. You can't just make up your own rules, and disregard the consensus.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I’m not making up my own rules. You’re misinterpreting the consensus. I participated in it and the assumption was this was for candidates still in. Them being on the ballot doesn’t matter when they suspended their campaign. Smith0124 (talk) 20:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Maybe read the closing comment. Also read the 2017 RfC. You are making up your own rules, and trying to impose your own beliefs on the article, ignoring consensus. That is disruptive. Stop it, and revert your edits.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

There is no part of the consensus that says that withdrawn candidates are included. Smith0124 (talk) 20:23, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

You can't just make up new standards to disregard RfC consensus. Rethink what you are doing here.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Block notice

@Ponyo: I'm sorry. I really am. There's no justifying it. But Darryl and I need to have equal punishment, the longer block for sure. This is both of our fault, though Darryl was the one jumping the gun and implementing his/her edits before the Rfc on the matter was closed. We both should be banned for 2 weeks, if not longer, and banned for the same amount of time. The whole argument stemmed from Darryl believing that a previous Rfc said that candidates should go on the infoboxes if they reached 5%, but it never mentioned withdrawn candidates, and the standard has been not to include them. So after some argument I started an Rfc and Darryl kept vandalizing and edit warring, even trying to close the Rfc despite having a clear bias and participating in it themself. As for my past, I've tried really hard not to edit war and it's been months since my last issue, I've been very collaborative and I was just protecting the rules when Darryl went beyond the discussion. We were both equally at fault and we should both get the same punishment. Smith0124 (talk) 00:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)