User talk:Qutlook/Archive 1

December 2020

Hello, I'm Doniago. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Google Voice, 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 the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 16:29, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Featured articles

Hi, I undid your edit on State of Katanga, because it's not a featured article. There's a whole process an article needs to go through to become featured, see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. Legoktm (talk) 22:52, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Reasoning behind edits to 1968 presidential election articles

“Qutlook”,

regarding my edits of the 1968 presidential election articles for Alabama, Illinois, Mississippi, North Dakota, South Carolina, Wisconsin and Wyoming, there was a definite purpose.

My intention with those edits was to list both:

1. the label (in all cases “Independent”) that Wallace ran under in those states
2. under the “alliance” row, the party under which they ran nationally

The template at “Infobox election” is unclear about what to use for “party” and “alliance”:

For “party” it reads:

“ Political Party using Political party shortname templates. The number can be changed up to nine to display different Parties at the same time. ”

For “alliance” it reads:

“ Political alliance in elections where coalition politics is common. ”

Presidential candidates can be affiliated with a party of a different name in their home state than on the national level — as George Wallace was in his home state of Alabama in 1968 when the state Democratic party chose electors pledged to him rather than the national party (as it also did in 1948 and 1964).

In the case of the 1968 presidential election in Alabama, the way in which the “party” and “alliance” rows are presently arranged is contradictory if we apply them to cases like the 1952 presidential election in Mississippi and in South Carolina. We would consequently have Eisenhower forming an alliance with an independent politician. This is logically contradictory as an independent politician by definition is

“ one not affiliated with any political party or bureaucratic association ”

which would mean that a nationally independent politician ipso facto cannot form alliances.

By this logic, my reversal of “party” and “alliance” for Wallace (and Humphrey) the 1968 election in Alabama is necessary. Put another way, the “alliance” logically should be the party allied with at a higher level (e.g. national rather than state). Luokehao (talk) 14:09, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

1. 1: How would a Candidate be an Independent if he has an Alliance with a Party, that would make no sense.
2. 2: Why only these States?

Qutlooker (talk) 00:12, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Regarding Question 1, I mean an independent with an alliance with a national level party.

This occurred in many states in 1924 with La Follette and 1968 with George Wallace, and with Eisenhower in Mississippi (and South Carolina) in 1952. If you look here, you will see that on the Mississippi ballot Eisenhower was labelled “Independent”. Page 255 of America at the Polls confirms this — the Eisenhower vote in Mississippi that year there was not even comprised of a fusion of multiple elector tickets.

Regarding Question 2, it is because those states did not list Wallace under the “American” or “American Independent” labels for reasons I am unsure of Luokehao (talk) 05:09, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

June 2023

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. -Lemonaka‎ 02:57, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

August 2023

Your recent editing history at 1948 United States presidential election shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. —C.Fred (talk) 02:33, 2 August 2023 (UTC)