User talk:Sdrqaz

This talk page is archived manually on the 15th day of every month, when the previous month's conversations are filed into storage. This applies unless doing so would result in no conversations being left. If the user switches to bot-based archiving, the account has been compromised. SEND HELP.

Adem Jashari

Adem Jashari edits are not my "preferred" version. Wikipedia is full of edited propaganda and his page is a hot spot for Serbs to commit their brainwash. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.89.31 (talk) 18:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

If you're making edits and they're being reverted and you revert them back, that is reverting back to your preferred version, because, well, you prefer that version. You need to provide evidence that it is "edited propaganda". You're removing information that is sourced to books and other sources; just saying it's propaganda is not an adequate reason to remove them. Sdrqaz (talk) 20:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

It's your preferred version. Why did you edit the original Adem Jashari wikipedia page when it was factual? Saying he killed his own family when the sole survivor, Besarta Jashari, went on BBC explaining what the Serb army did. That's the first example of you providing false information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.89.31 (talk) 21:16, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, obviously we both have preferred versions. But I'm not the one who has edited it seven times in less than a day. I'm not sure what you mean by editing it when it was factual; I've not edited the page before today. I'm also not sure what you mean when you claim that I said Jashari killed his family. Please provide a quote stating that. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

This shouldn't be based off of "preferred" versions. It should be based off of facts. That's what was edited it - a claim that Adem killed his own family. His niece had an interview telling what actually happened. But you have also reverted it back several times in a day to false information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.89.31 (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I completely agree that it should be based on facts. But you are removing sourced information and replacing it with information that is not sourced. In the eyes of Wikipedia, that is not basing information off the facts: the very opposite (see WP:V). One of the passages you removed was The only survivor was Besarta Jashari, Hamëz Jashari's daughter. She claimed that the policemen had "threatened her with a knife and ordered her to say that her uncle (Adem Jashari) had killed everyone who wanted to surrender." Given that what you're saying is in agreement with that, I am baffled that you would remove the passage. Sdrqaz (talk) 23:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Five tildes

"In general, when communicating with others, you should use one of the previous options and not only a timestamp". GiantSnowman 13:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

GiantSnowman, as I pointed out on your talk page and as it says in your quote, it is a general principle. To my mind, creating an RfC does not count as "communicating with others" in the conventional sense on talk pages and WP:RFCST is clear on the issue. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:34, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was in response to my message at GiantSnowman's talk page.

Congress

Half an hour isn't really too early, and their terms expire today in any event. And if it isn't really settled law at what exact minute they expire, it's hardly inaccurate.--Killuminator (talk) 16:53, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@Killuminator: Wikipedia does not say that something has happened when it has not happened yet. That is not what it does. If it is early by an hour or early by a year, it is still too early. Moreover, please read Section One of the Twentieth Amendment to the United States Constitution. I think a constitutional amendment is more than settled law. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:57, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

It's noon sharp in Washington D.C. or do we now wait for noon for every Congressional district? You could argue that it isn't settled law by that alone. They represent narrow constituencies after all, not the entire country, and the constitution is tight-lipped about that. This isn't me seriously arguing that we should do that but one could make the case based on that. Individual pages for these various politicians had already been edited to reflect expired terms before I started my edits on that page. --Killuminator (talk) 17:08, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@Killuminator: It is very clearly Washington, DC. I don't think anyone has ever seriously called for the president's inauguration to be delayed until noon is reached in Hawaii. Moreover, 15 U.S.C. § 262 states that In all statutes, orders, rules, and regulations relating to the time of performance of any act ... it shall be understood and intended that the time shall insofar as practicable ... be the United States standard time of the zone within which the act is to be performed; 4 U.S.C. § 72 make it clear that All offices attached to the seat of government shall be exercised in the District of Columbia. It is inevitable that editors will jump the proverbial gun, but just because it is occurring on other pages doesn't make it right. Sdrqaz (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was in response to my message at Killuminator's talk page.

Eyak language

I updated the Eyak language page to have the proper endonym for the language: dAxhunhyuuga’. Iyaq is an exonym, not the native name. See here (page 11) and here. Please undo your removal of the edit. 2601:240:CB80:8770:C1C7:ADD6:9711:FC46 (talk) 01:56, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I see: thank you for providing me with a source. I have reverted myself and have struck through my notice on your page. Sorry for the misjudgement; the use of unusually-placed upper- and lower-case letters in the same word is usually a tell-tale sign of vandalism. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:04, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! 2601:240:CB80:8770:C1C7:ADD6:9711:FC46 (talk) 05:46, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Symbiosis

Hi,

You removed my changes on the page Symbiosis. I did not provide a new reference as the references already there are actually saying what I wrote. They had been badly summarized before, it was confusing. You can check this by reading the references. Also, what I wrote is on this wikipedia page already: check Cell nucleus, under Evolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.162.83.72 (talk) 21:45, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I have copied the source citation from that page over to Symbiosis.

Sdrqaz (talk) 14:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Happy wikibirthday!

Just visited your page and saw your userbox. As it happens, it's my real-life birthday—an amusing coincidence :) AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Aww, thank you AP! You're the only one who noticed :( I cringe when I think back to the edits made when I was starting out...

This coincidence is a sign, I'm sure of it, of ... something? Happy (real) birthday; I hope you had a good start to 2021! Sdrqaz (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Great job your doing Phillypaboy123 (talk) 18:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Aww thank you Phillypaboy123! Sdrqaz (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Rollback granted

I have granted the "rollbacker" permission to your account. After a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, contact me and I will remove it. Good luck and thanks. FASTILY 02:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Much appreciated, Fastily! I'll use it to the best of my ability. Sdrqaz (talk) 13:11, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Lara Trump

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Lara Trump 2601:601:CE80:8640:5DE0:FEFE:7BF7:4B8A (talk) 08:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Kamala Harris

Indeed, her resignation from the US Senate doesn't take effect until Noon EST, on 18 January 2021. But, trying to make that stick, is like spitting up against the Niagara Falls. GoodDay (talk) 16:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Very true GoodDay! Sometimes feels futile... Sdrqaz (talk) 16:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I used to go through this kinda thing every 2, 4 or 6 years. This year, was the first time, I just gave up & updated or allowed other to update new governors & new lieutenant governors, at the stroke of mid-night of the inaugural day. Figured 12 or less hours, wasn't worth the stress :) GoodDay (talk) 16:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@GoodDay: I probably won't make the edits myself, but allowing others to do them sounds like a good idea in the long run. At the end of the day, it's a website, after all. Sdrqaz (talk) 17:06, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Jihad Watch RFC closure

Hi Sdrqaz, I just wanted to drop a quick thank-you for closing the RFC finally. I know it was probably quite a bit to read through; I never imagined when I filed it that I'd wind up so personally and abusively attacked just for filing a required procedure. IHateAccounts (talk) 21:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@IHateAccounts: No problem. It didn't seem like a particularly pleasant RfC and I was happy to be uninvolved. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

With this close you accuse "many editors" of extending criticism to the proposer. Can you name them and/or point to their edits? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:02, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Peter, I'd rather not list users and diffs because the RfC is now closed. However, I recognise your point that many criticisms were not explicitly directed towards the proposer. I was uncomfortable with some of the ways in which editors were dismissive, given that formal deprecation requires going through the RfC process. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:57, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Criticism directed towards the proposer can be criticism of the proposition not of the proposer, so I don't see whom you refer to and I believe that the word "dismissive" could be applied to the act of discarding criticisms. But "implied refusal to seriously consider or discuss an objection" merely violates an essay (WP:ACD), I won't challenge. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Peter, I hope that you haven't felt that your concerns have been ignored and if that is what you feel, I hope that your perception of the closure is not changed because of it. I am considering rewriting the summary on the basis of your objections, but the core finding of consensus is unchanged and I have found no need to do so. In a way, my comments on editor conduct in the RfC were peripheral to the actual thrust of the RfC: whether the source should be deprecated. I was taken aback by comments such as accusing editors of wanting to jerk [them]selves off to the accomplishment [...] and others who called it a waste of time when RfCs are required to deprecate sources. Sdrqaz (talk) 17:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

117th Congress

The article on 116th Congress does not include the former President and President Pro Tempore. That is why Pence's information is removed. Jusfiq (talk) 13:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jusfiq: That comparison does not hold up because there was no change in President of the Senate or President pro tempore in that Congress. If you look at the 115th United States Congress, where the President of the Senate changed from Biden to Pence, both are listed. Please revert your own edit. Sdrqaz (talk) 13:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with your reasoning on eliminating "coalition" from the senate majority in the 117th United States Congress. If you look at the page for the 110th United States Congress, you'll see that it does have the Senate majority listed as a Democratic (coalition). We need to be consistent. Either we add "coalition" to the senate majority in the 117th United States Congress, or we eliminate "coalition" from the 110th United States Congress. It's important to note the Democratic caucus' majorities for both congressional sessions were predicated upon the same conditions: Democrats did not have enough seats to constitute a majority in and of themselves; their "majority" was only made possible with two Independent senators agreeing to align with their caucus. Therefore, I would argue that the majority caucuses in the 110th and 117th Congresses is and were truly multiparty coalitions. Wxstorm (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Wxstorm, I suggest removing them from both. Do you have a reliable source that refers to the Democratic majority as a "coalition"? Wikipedia is built on what reliable sources say, not what we want them to say. If my understanding of political coalitions is correct, coalitions are formed for the purpose of creating a majority. Given that Sens. Lieberman, Sanders, and King have caucused with the Democrats throughout their time in the Senate, the Democratic caucus is not considered a formal coalition in the usual senses of the term. This was not an ad hoc affair like the Cameron–Clegg coalition, with a formal coalition agreement. The independent senators have been effectively subsumed into the Democratic Caucus. Moreover, it cannot be called "multiparty" as independents do not belong to another party. The Senate Democratic Caucus here includes both the senator from Maine and the senator from Vermont as being Democratic senators. Sdrqaz (talk) 17:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

The bone of contention here is whether the two Independent senators in the 110th and 117th Congresses were Democrats. Based on party affiliation, Joe Lieberman, Bernie Sanders, and Angus King are not members of the Democratic Party. It's well known where Bernie Sanders sits on the issues; he proudly refers to himself as a Socialist. However, Joe Lieberman and Angus King are truly centrist figures who voted with both Democrats and Republicans (both were former Democrats who either left the party on their own or were ousted from the party). In the case of Joe Lieberman, he lost Connecticut's 2006 Democratic Senate Primary to Ned Lamont (who's the current Governor of Connecticut). After losing the Democratic Primary, Lieberman ran as an Independent, and won re-election largely from the support of Republican voters in the 2006 General Election. With that being said, I'm thinking it would not be correct to call the majority Senate caucus in either the 110th or 117th Congresses the Democratic caucus; rather simply the "Majority Caucus" since the caucus is not made up entirely of Democrats. Now, if 51 (50 with Harris as VP) Senate seats were held by actual members of the Democratic Party, I could see the majority caucus being called the "Democratic Caucus" since they would hold an outright majority in the chamber without the need for non-Democrat Senators to join their caucus to form a majority. Indeed, you're correct in there are no real good examples of "coalition" caucuses in Congress throughout our country's history. However, they have occurred several times in state legislatures, most recently in Washington State where a few moderate Democrats in the state Senate caucused with Republicans to create what was called the "Majority Coalition Caucus" from 2012 to 2017. Similar arrangements took place since 2000 in the New York Senate and in the New Mexico Senate (dubbed the "Cowboy Coalition," made up of Republicans and conservative rural Democrats creating a coalition majority caucus, leaving minority caucus consisting of more progressive urban/suburban Democrats). Just because a "coalition caucus" hasn't happened in the US Congress doesn't mean it can't happen.63.227.108.101 (talk) 13:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the thorough answer. I'll admit to not knowing about the situations in Washington state, New York, and New Mexico (I assume you're referring to the Mama Lucy Gang), so I've learned something new. I was, however, aware of the electoral histories of Sens. Lieberman, Sanders, and King. I was not claiming that they are registered as Democrats, but they were part of the Democratic caucus. In most reliable sources, they are described as being "independents caucusing with the Democrats" or something along those lines. I agree that a coalition down the line can happen (never say never in politics), but I fail to see how this can be accurately described as being one. Your examples of the state legislatures seem to involve politicians crossing party lines to join a coalition specifically for the purpose of forming a majority. This is not the case with the aforementioned senators. They did not leave the Democratic caucus after they were not needed. They did not have a coalition agreement, unlike the Majority Coalition Caucus. They have effectively been subsumed into the caucus: they are Democrats in all but name. I reiterate my point above: we need reliable sources that refer to the Senate majorities in the 110th and 117th Congresses as being coalitions. Sdrqaz (talk) 04:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Can you assist at Talk:Jonathan D. Gray?

Hi, I work for Blackstone. I see you were recently active at the Blackstone article and appear to have a good sense of how to apply the NPOV policy. Can you please take a look at the discussion at Talk:Jonathan D. Gray#Some edit requests regarding whether the Controversies section consists of a WP:COATRACK or not? Thank you, ThomasClements Blackstone (talk) 19:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Thomas, thank you for your message. I will do so, but will take some time to catch up with the situation at hand. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Jaffna District

There is no government link. one is broken and the other doesn't mention Jaffna as a twin city. I suggest you to look carefully at the citations. YaSiRu11 (talk) 15:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)