Talk:Mike DeWine

message: In the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Impeachment resolution against Mike DeWine, it was very clear that the consensus was to merge.  I am needing an explanation as to why the information is being removed by  and .  The Afd for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Impeachment resolution against Gretchen Whitmer deemed that information not notable, however, Afd's don't cross, especially ones that have been decided. Elijahandskip (talk) 13:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, I removed the 'info' because, the same was done at the Whitmer article. GoodDay (talk) 13:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

text: We need an RFC on this matter, concerning the inclusion/exclusion of impeachment resolutions in bio articles & or whether there should be impeachment resolution articles, themselves. GoodDay (talk) 13:08, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: What happened on Whitmer's article shouldn't matter for this article.  Afd had a 7 editor (of 7 editor) consensus to merge the information into this article.  The Afd was also decided before Whitmer's Afd started.  In Theory, the information is deemed notable until otherwise proven.  I would be OK for an RFC discussion, however, since the Afd is the latest discussion on the information, I am going to add it back. Elijahandskip (talk) 13:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already restored it. GoodDay (talk) 13:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussing how a Afd voted a "merge" in the article, but content is removed. 

message: Multiple editors have different opinions about the impeachment resolution section of Mike DeWine.  Should the Impeachment Resolution section be added to the Mike DeWine article? Elijahandskip (talk) 16:15, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Needing Help to fix the Rfc tag Elijahandskip (talk) 16:15, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Add on for referencing.  The Afd was decided 7 days ago, on December 8, 2020. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:24, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

text: I would maybe say stick with DeWine's article just for this RFC.  In non-COVID related issues, impeachment proceedings/process is considered highly notable on Wikipedia, even if it doesn't go anywhere, just because they are so rare (Last was 2009....Pre-COVID.  See Rod Blagojevich corruption charges).  The main discussion is about COVID-19 impeachment resolutions. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , well, it's rare that they're actually impeached, certainly. But drawing up or filing articles of impeachment isn't the same. It may also be rare, but in this political climate where we've got much crazier things going on, is it really important enough for a named subsection? I'm just not convinced yet. As I mentioned at the AfD, I think there might be an article in all the crazy shit the nutjobs are doing right now to keep from pissing off Trump supporters, but I doubt we'll get scholarly analysis connecting those for a few years, and without that it's just synth. —valereee (talk) 19:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

text: The same could be said for the Gretchen Whitmer article. But, there's nothing there, either. GoodDay (talk) 20:48, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know and don't care. Other stuff exists. If it comes up in an RfC then I'll take a look. R2 (bleep) 21:34, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

text: William Allen Simpson (talk) 22:36, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Commenting on #3.  I mean technically to file impeachment articles, a "House Resolution" must be created and filed.  Also #5 was a personal attack...Too far.  I am the lead coordinator of Wikiproject of Current Events....Please stop doing personal attacks. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

text: *Nota Bene: Much to my surprise, as I'd only observed actions on Wikipedia, the administrators found that Elijahandskip was hosting attack pages on DeWine and Whitmer, an alternative Wikipedia website (and Twitter account). And a view that mainstream media, or what Wikipedia would consider "reliable sources", is biased. Also, that Wikipedia is inciting racism. After discovery, the blog entries were deleted (or hidden from administrators). Now, spamming this notice into every dispute. Don't feed the trolls.William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:46, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: *Why are you being a hypocrite?  You just got all upset because some things weren't mentioned in every discussion, now you are upset because something that is highly important to the discussion was added in all the discussions. Just saying, you need think before typing. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:46, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

text: Distribution section? GoodDay (talk) 14:41, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The section just above this one. It is a drop down tab.Elijahandskip (talk) 15:33, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, Disruption section. You posted Distribution. GoodDay (talk) 15:35, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: My bad.  I hate typing on my phone.  Elijahandskip (talk) 16:43, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

text: It isn't a hidden section.  The section was pulled out of the RFC because the whole topic about me and you fighting isn't a part of the RFC.  Also an administrator told you to communicate with me and you haven't.  The topic of an RFC about me was basically stopped as we both got warned.  Please just drop that topic.  I was asking a simple question. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:42, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC for the Impeachment Resolution Section 

message: *Due to the recent threat by , this is relevant for future discussion in this Rfc. (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Major problem with @William Allen Simpson:) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elijahandskip (talk • contribs) 23:37, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: *Nota Bene: Much to my surprise, as I'd only observed actions on Wikipedia, the administrators found that Elijahandskip was hosting attack pages on DeWine and Whitmer, an alternative Wikipedia website (and Twitter account). And a view that mainstream media, or what Wikipedia would consider "reliable sources", is biased. Also, that Wikipedia is inciting racism. After discovery, the blog entries were deleted (or hidden from administrators). Now, spamming this notice into every dispute. Don't feed the trolls.William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:46, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: *Why are you being a hypocrite?  You just got all upset because some things weren't mentioned in every discussion, now you are upset because something that is highly important to the discussion was added in all the discussions. Just saying, you need think before typing. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:46, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disruption 

message: Can William Allen Simpson's fifth point be classified as disturbing and that point (plus my comment to the fifth point) be added to the distribution section? Elijahandskip (talk) 14:15, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Distribution section? GoodDay (talk) 14:41, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The section just above this one. It is a drop down tab.Elijahandskip (talk) 15:33, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, Disruption section. You posted Distribution. GoodDay (talk) 15:35, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: My bad.  I hate typing on my phone.  Elijahandskip (talk) 16:43, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

text: It isn't a hidden section.  The section was pulled out of the RFC because the whole topic about me and you fighting isn't a part of the RFC.  Also an administrator told you to communicate with me and you haven't.  The topic of an RFC about me was basically stopped as we both got warned.  Please just drop that topic.  I was asking a simple question. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:42, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: We need an administrator to close this expired-tag RFC. GoodDay (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Closing

message: The current status was  vandalised by . Most was restored.
After I fixed the remaining missing text, I was reverted (Not a complete sentences.) by .
"... is an American politician and attorney. Currently serving as the governor of Ohio." Clearly, two complete sentences.
The current state is a run-on "... is an American politician and attorney and governor of Ohio, since 2019."
Would somebody else please fix the lead.William Allen Simpson (talk) 08:12, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry, but "Currently serving as the governor of Ohio." is not a complete sentence. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: "A complete sentence always contains a verb, expresses a complete idea and makes sense standing alone." The verb is "serving" and the object is "governor of Ohio." In English, the subject is often implied: "An implied subject is not explicitly stated in a sentence but is understood from context." Please re-read a handy copy of Strunk and White. Also, Google is your friend.William Allen Simpson (talk) 23:04, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not a complete sentence. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Proof by assertion.William Allen Simpson (talk) 23:24, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Cullen is correct. In formal English grammar, every sentence needs at least one independent clause. An independent clause has a finite verb as its root. "Serving" is a non-finite verb, a present participle. "Currently serving as the governor of Ohio" has no finite verb, and thus no independent clause, and therefore is not a complete sentence. This kind of writing is common in newspaper headlines and image captions, but it's not appropriate for Wikipedia. As an aside, The Elements of Style is a style guide, not a grammar book, and I would recommend against using it as such. But in this case, Strunk agrees with me. See section II, item 6, "Do not break sentences in two" . Red Rock Canyon (talk) 06:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: English isn't Latin. Perhaps "serving" could be "serves" in this case. But then we start arguing about gerunds. That was a long run-on sentence, and doesn't meet any of the examples of splitting sentences in Strunk and White. (It also has commas in the wrong places.)William Allen Simpson (talk) 02:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: What does Latin have to do with anything? In formal English, the kind used in Wikipedia, a sentence requires a subject and a finite verb. "Currently serves as governor of Ohio" also isn't a complete sentence, since it lacks a subject. Sentences without finite verbs or with implied subjects are perfectly acceptable in many contexts, but they're not appropriate for Wikipedia. They read like bullet points on a resume, not an introduction in an encyclopedia. In any case, I rewrote the lead sentence, modeling it after other similar articles like Greg Abbott and Gavin Newsom. Also, I felt that it went into excessive detail on his past offices (those should be limited to the most notable ones per MOS:ROLEBIO), and it also included some details that weren't in the body of the article, so I removed them. I think the current lead works as a decent first paragraph, but ideally it should be expanded now to summarize more of the article. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 05:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Fixing the lead is what I'd asked originally.William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Governor of Ohio 

message: I understand that the impeachment resolution shouldn't have it's own section, however, it is very wrong to exclude it completely from his history as governor.  I am proposing to add 3 sentences to his 2020 section.
"On August 24, 2020, state representative John Becker, co-sponsored by representatives Candice Keller, Nino Vitale, and Paul Zeltwanger, drew up articles of impeachment on DeWine over disagreements he had with how DeWine had handled the COVID-19 pandemic.  Becker, Keller, Vitale and Zeltwanger officially issued 12 articles of impeachment against DeWine on November 30, 2020.  The impeachment resolution never went to a vote, and died in a "lame-duck" session."
Of course sources will be added for citations, but that is my proposal since the attempt to impeach him is a part of his governorship history, it should have a mention.  The RFC above, the way I understand it, was to not have a large section about it.  But the history aspect should still be mentioned.
(Pinging relevant users from the Rfc: ,, , , & 
Anyone agree to this? Elijahandskip (talk) 22:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I will never understand why Wikipedia editors want to re-write history on their own.  But you have your opinion.  Sad that people will 100% forget that there was an attempt to impeach a sitting US governor. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Just like with Gretchen Whitmer, there wasn't much of an attempt. If the state House votes on any impeachment article(s), then inclusion would be proper. Until then? nope. GoodDay (talk) 22:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

text: Ok.  The Oppose vote is very clear.  Won't mention this ever again. Closing now. Elijahandskip (talk) 23:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impeachment resolution mention (3 sentences, not a section) proposal 

message: Being cut off unemployment for not going to workforce ohio. Don’t know suppose to go. Don’t have laptop or computer or internet or WiFi. Have outdated cellphone  unable to get on websit at workforce ohio. So unemployment checks are cut off. Employee at workforce told us that it was their problem not ours but was nothing she could do about it. How many people either give up or don’t get their unemployment money. Is this why both unemployment is going down but ohio poverty rate is increasing. What happened to ohio population being first concern 2607:FB91:16D5:4D48:D534:F66D:5B99:C80B (talk) 18:59, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unemployment