User talk:JocularJellyfish/Archives/2018/May

This is an archive of User talk:JocularJellyfish. Please do not change it in any way. – JocularJellyfish ^Talk_Contribs 23:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

John Sinatra

Just a heads up that I have created John Sinatra, expected to be formally nominated tomorrow to the Western District of New York. Also, it is John L. Sinatra, not John J. Sinatra, as one of the newspaper articles has incorrectly. His name is correct at his law firm link. Safiel (talk) 00:31, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@Safiel: Thanks for the heads up. Any other nominees? – JocularJellyfish ^Talk_Contribs 00:53, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• Not that I have heard of yet, but expect a nomination announcement from the White House tomorrow, according to the news article on Sinatra. Safiel (talk) 00:57, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@Safiel: This administration is moving so fast it's hard to keep up! – JocularJellyfish ^Talk_Contribs 01:01, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• Just my personal opinion, not connected to Wikipedia, but I wish they would move a little faster on filling District Judgeships. :) Yes, I know why they are concentrating on Circuit Judgeships, but we need trial judges badly. Safiel (talk) 01:04, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@Safiel: Just my personal opinion, but yes, I agree. – JocularJellyfish ^Talk_Contribs 01:07, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Judge Kanne (7th Cir.)

Just FYI, the USCourts website is no longer listing a vacancy on the 7th Circuit for Judge Michael S Kanne taking senior status, whether as a future or current vacancy. It was there as of a few days ago, but not today. I wrote them to ask whether this was some kind of error or if Kanne had changed his mind about taking senior status, but haven't heard back yet. I also looked for any news reports that might have relevant information, but couldn't find anything. Something to keep an eye on. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 01:24, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@LacrimosaDiesIlla: If it's not an error, it wouldn't be the first time. Rudolph T. Randa of the Eastern District of Wisconsin did the same thing in the W. Bush administration after a possible successor's nomination failed. He then went senior in 2016. I'm not going to speculate about Kanne's motives, but for now I'll hide the row on the Seventh Circuit page. – JocularJellyfish ^Talk_Contribs 01:27, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 01:45, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Duty Stations

How are you finding duty stations for nominees? Or are you just assuming that their duty station will be wherever they live now? LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 22:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@LacrimosaDiesIlla: For elevated district court judges, I go with their current duty station. Magistrate judges keep their existing duty station, unless a news article explicitly refers to them being seated in a specific division of a court. For everyone else, I look at the preceding judge's duty station along with sources for where the new appointee currently works. For example, Judge Jim Ho of the 5th Cir. got Dallas because he was a partner in the Dallas office of Gibson Dunn. Another Circuit Judge also has Dallas as their duty station, so I assumed it was possible for him to remain there. Meanwhile, Judge Don Willett of the 5th got Austin because that is where his former court, the Supreme Court of Texas, hears cases, and another Judge already has a duty station there. So, it's mainly some assumptions aside from the rare court page that lists the Judge's duty station. In the future, I'm likely going to start emailing court clerks to ask for that information. – JocularJellyfish ^Talk_Contribs 22:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, partly I ask because your hidden entry for Ryan Nelson on the Ninth Circuit gives his duty station as Idaho Falls, but there is no federal judicial presence in Idaho Falls. The District of Idaho only has courthouses in Boise, Coeur d'Alene, and Pocatello. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 22:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@LacrimosaDiesIlla: Thanks for catching me on that one. I removed the duty station from the entry. – JocularJellyfish ^Talk_Contribs 22:38, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Any time. Pocatello is obviously the closest of the three options, if we assume he doesn't want to live in a different part of the state and needs to be based at an existing federal courthouse, but maybe we should just wait. The other one I was interested in was Kyle Duncan. I had heard a rumor that he would be based in Lafayette, LA. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 22:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@LacrimosaDiesIlla: To be honest with you, I wasn't sure about that one, either. He did just move back to the state, after all. – JocularJellyfish ^Talk_Contribs 22:46, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Alright, I'll wait and see if we can get some more concrete data then. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 22:50, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@LacrimosaDiesIlla: I added the {{dm}} tag to the duty station cell for Duncan's judgeship row. – JocularJellyfish ^Talk_Contribs 23:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress#Capitals

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress#Capitals. —GoldRingChip 12:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Amy St. Eve

FYI Judge St. Eve hasn't received her commission yet, so she's still a Northern District judge for the current moment. She had motion call this morning. Typically it takes a week or so for the commission to get ironed out. agtx 17:33, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Agtx: Thanks for the info and fixing the district court page. – JocularJellyfish ^Talk_Contribs 23:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Gina Haspel

Hi JocularJellyfish Gina Haspel is still Acting Afthr she gets Sworn in we have to Conciter her as the 7th Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. You do remember right? And She have not been Sworn in yet she might be Sworn in tomrrow. Becuse President Trump and Vice President Pence might make a Sworn in Ceromony for tomrrow I found who made the edit first and remind that User to Wait next time till she is Sworn in becuse more people get in on it and all those people get the page lock and some people can't edit. Thanks96.36.68.29 (talk) 22:34, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Robert Wilkie

I got the news from Lawrence O'Donnell of MSNBC that Wilkie was appointed VA secretary as of yesterday. If I am in fact right can you restore my edits please . Thanks Mark^Dask 14:43, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I gotta correct myself here - Trump has only nominated Wilkie for the post - I merely assumed Wilkie will be confirmed 100 - 0 because he's the first uncontroversial appointment Trump has made since occupying the perambulator . Mea Culpa. Mark^Dask 14:55, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

@Markdask: It's all good. – JocularJellyfish ^Talk_Contribs 15:45, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Moving pages

I see you moved John Joyce (politician) to John Joyce (New Zealand politician). Fine; I see that there could be confusion with an ancient English MP. But what is the point of moving the article when the initial version still redirects to the moved page? Shouldn't you be tidying things up when you move pages? If not, what is the point of moving them? Or am I missing something? Schwede66 03:55, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

@Schwede66: I apologize for the late reply. Here in Pennsylvania, there's a House of Representatives election where one of the candidates (and likely winner of the whole race) is named John Joyce (American politician). Since he had the nationality in the disambiguation, I assumed the New Zealand politician needed it as well. – JocularJellyfish ^Talk_Contribs 18:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

That's fine. I did not question your rationale for moving the page. What I'm pointing out to you is that there is a need for a post-move cleanup that you haven't attended to. Most notably, if somebody searches for John Joyce (politician) they still end up with the New Zealand politician since you did not attend to fixing that. Post-move cleanup is part of the task of moving a page. Don't leave it for others to cleanup after you. Schwede66 18:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

@Schwede66: Your point is well taken. I changed the piping on all of the mainspace articles to reflect John Joyce (New Zealand politician). – JocularJellyfish ^Talk_Contribs 00:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok thanks. I've changed the redirect to point to the dab page. Schwede66 06:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Things before they happen

Hey, JJ - I've reverted several recent edits of yours relating to Jelena McWilliams, Trump's nominee to head the FDIC. She hasn't been confirmed by the Senate yet, and, while that's pretty much a sure thing whenever it's actually put to a vote, it hasn't come to pass, and so is inappropriate for inclusion. Once in a while things don't turn out the way everyone expects. I see from a quick review of your Talk page that this has been raised with you before, so let me reiterate a bit more strongly - please don't add or change material in articles based on things that haven't yet. It's easy enough to wait a few hours, or a few days, until the near-certain event has actually taken place, and can be properly sourced (another thing that is left out when you jump the gun). Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 02:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@JohnInDC: Your comment is noted, but reverting my edits was completely unnecessary on her page. The infobox clearly stated "nominee" and "pending Senate confirmation" while the succession boxes were hidden. The FSOC page was fine on your part and I will add a note that she is a pending nominee on the Martin J. Gruenberg page. – JocularJellyfish ^Talk_Contribs 02:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@JohnInDC: I did make a mistake in my previous comment. I thought you reverted my addition of the succession boxes but it was for the categories relating to the FDIC. I reverted your edit so I could comment out the categories instead. – JocularJellyfish ^Talk_Contribs 02:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ah, yes - I was fooled by the "infobox (officeholder)" template that you introduced before she was in fact, an officeholder; and by the fact that you had also added her to the Categories applicable only to people who actually hold their offices. I apologize for my haste on that edit, but stand by my general comments, and ask - as several others have before me - that you await the actual occurrence of an event before you edit pages based on that event. It's a pretty easy bright-line test in the end. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 03:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I've noticed that you seem to be routinely adding premature content to pages, then undoing it or commenting it out for - I am supposing - a quick Undo later once the new material becomes true. (I note Randy Evans and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation today.) I think that's likely to confuse anyone who may have a page watchlisted, seeing edits done and undone, or done and then made invisible, and I think it'd be better if you didn't, and just waited until the event took place. At the very least please include edit summaries explaining what you're up to so that other editors don't also have to pick through your changes afterwards to figure it all out. (Consistent use of edit summaries is a good practice in any case.) I'm sorry if I seem pedantic or fussy about this, but when an editing practice makes extra work for other editors, it's worth reconsidering. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 01:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@JohnInDC: I acknowledge your point, but I have to say this is the first time I've heard that the practice of adding stuff to an article and commenting it out until the content is relevant is a problem in itself. I don't see it as productive to wait to make full edits until the event has actually happened because then a whole lot of IP editors along with other users cause edit conflicts that result in plenty of wasted time and people overwriting each others' work. I believe my edits are productive, otherwise I wouldn't be making them. As to watch lists, my concern is less about keeping editors' pages clutter-free than to ensure accuracy of pages. I apologize if my edits are causing you a headache, but I don't really see what was wrong with the Randy Evans and FDIC page edits. – JocularJellyfish ^Talk_Contribs 02:45, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

When an editor has a page watchlisted, and an unfamiliar editor comes along and makes a series of edits without offering any clue what they're doing, and then immediately comments out or undoes their very own edits - again without saying what they're doing - then there's a good chance that the watching editor will peruse the series of edits to try to figure out what the editor was doing. It's not an esthetic problem, of "clutter" - what I've described is exactly what I had to do with Gruenberg, and then Jelena McWilliams. And, since in those cases you hadn't in fact commented some things out, I had in those cases to take the extra step of checking the web to see if, in fact, she'd been confirmed (which she still hadn't, so you'd left the article wrong to boot). I am simply asking you to employ thoughtful and considerate practices - if you're going to do something that looks, for example, both complicated and completely unproductive like at Randy Evans, then at least describe it in edit summaries as you go so that others won't have to waste time making sure you haven't just vandalized the page, or in trying to work out what you've just done. Personally? I think that ante-factual editing is inherently confusing and - by being counterfactual, and unsourced, risks inaccuracy as well. Other editors, you included I guess, may think differently, so - eh, fine, you want to do it, then go ahead. But doing it without edit summaries is just inconsiderate, really kind of indefensible as a routine practice. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 03:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@JohnInDC: I'll say that my edits to Randy Evans were not unproductive, but I will concede your point regarding edit summaries. In all honesty, however, this should not be an issue we have to nitpick and argue over and our energies our better devoted to improving the project. For that reason, I don't see any reason to continue going back and forth. – JocularJellyfish ^Talk_Contribs 03:42, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I certainly agree about wasted energy, and if you can make regular use of edit summaries then we can quit. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 03:48, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

In addition to the edit summaries, when you update an article, please add pertinent sources. For example now that Jelena McWilliams has been confirmed by the Senate, it would be helpful to the project, and ensure greater accuracy of the pages, to include a reference to that effect. At the moment, her infobox shows her as FDIC Chairman, but there's no source in the article to support that. (The infobox is also now inconsistent with the article text, which makes no reference to either today's confirmation or new position.) Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 18:04, 24 May 2018 (UTC)