User talk:GoldRingChip/Archives/2008

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
   User Page        Talk Pages        Toolset        To do        Bibliography        sandbox        sb2        sb3        sb4        sb5        sb6      

United States Senate election in Mississippi, 2008[edit]

If you have time I would like to hear your comments on this page Talk:United States Senate election in Mississippi, 2008#Merger proposal. Gang14 (talk) 17:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With Respect… You're wrong[edit]

Elections that involve both special and regular elections on the same day have thus far been called "elections" on a merged page. The reason it is hard to tell is because it happens so rarely. I only think of two other times since wikipedia started: United States Senate elections in Wyoming, 2008 and Texas's 22nd congressional district elections, 2006.--Dr who1975 (talk) 20:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody had a problem with me creating Mississippi's class 1 senate special election, 2008 that had nothing to do with the debates going on.--Dr who1975 (talk) 20:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't that discussion be on Talk:United States Senate special election in Mississippi, 2008... you're really confusing the hell out of me.--Dr who1975 (talk) 20:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moving United States Senate special election in Mississippi, 2008 to Mississippi's class 1 senate special election, 2008 was pretty much a seperate action from the merge/un merge argument. Nobody seemed opposed to it.--Dr who1975 (talk) 21:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Who1975[edit]

It looks as if Dr Who1975 continues to do wholesale changes to articles and talk pages I'm following including making changes to postings you made. As i recall that you are an administrator, do you think what Dr Who1975 is doing is grounds for giving him a temporary block to teach him a lesson? Steelbeard1 (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Absolutely not. I will not use (or abuse) my SysOp "powers" by "teaching someone a lesson." His/her actions are strong-headed, but not vandalizing. I don't agree with him/her on the naming of the United States Senate special election in Mississippi, 2008, but this Time Lord is a reasonable person who just needs to be convinced with a reasonable argument. I'm not the best at logical discussions, but maybe you can give it a try?—GoldRingChip 22:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Boston Celtics[edit]

 Please accept this invite to join the Celtics WikiProject, a WikiProject dedicated to improving all articles associated with the Boston Celtics. Simply click here to accept!

Ohmpandya (Talk to Me...) 17:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Teacher Tax Cut Act[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Teacher Tax Cut Act, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teacher Tax Cut Act. Thank you. Burzmali (talk) 17:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User: Dr who1975's sockpuppetry case[edit]

I made a stupid edit in a moment of anger and now a Sockpuppetry case has been opend against me. The thing is, this guy User:France a has only shown an interest in Doctor Who. Niether he nor his sockpuppets has ever done any work on the united states congressional pages. Can you review the case and vouch for me? User:Porcupine is being completely overzealous and it sacres me. I know that I actually make a difference for weikipedia.--Dr who1975 (talk) 14:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK. I've posted a comment on the case.—GoldRingChip 18:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I need somebody to request a checkuser of me against User:Brinstar (a confirmed sockpuppet of France A). I am not allowed to do it myself. This will prove that I am not France A.--Dr who1975 (talk) 21:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • So I got through it. Thank you for your assistance. I owe you.--Dr who1975 (talk) 15:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Historical election article[edit]

Why not use it in the mainspace?--Dr who1975 (talk) 19:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:United States presidential election, 2008[edit]

As an occasional past editor at Template:United States presidential election, 2008,
your comment is invited at Template talk:United States presidential election, 2008#Revisited: Proposal on minimum standards for listing on template
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 18:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congressional districts lists of representatives[edit]

Thanks for your kind words on my work Tennessee's 7th congressional district. I actually swiped the template I used from another district's page. I will use the template you suggested in the future and also make corrections to my work on the 7th soon.Moodyfloydwhofan (talk) 21:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK. There are quite a few districts which use the form you used, it's just that I like the other format ( the one I showed you) and I'm trying to get it used consistently. I'm going to put a style template somewhere. Cheers.—GoldRingChip 21:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Massachusetts Wikiproject[edit]

I just created a Massachusetts portal. Please tell me if I need to add anything or do anything to make it work better with the project. STORMTRACKER 94 Go Sox! 02:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I knew you were going to do that[edit]

I hate using the nav box.--Dr who1975 (talk) 15:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think Nav boxes are a necessary evil. It's a fait accompli, so we might as well use them properly.—GoldRingChip 16:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of US Representatives[edit]

Interesting...I got that format from Ohio's 5th congressional district and proceeded to enter all of Ohio's 600 or so Representatives in that format :P I'm not sure where it came from, but it seems easier to follow, to me (for what it's worth). Ardric47 (talk) 00:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sigh. Yeah, I know. There are many districts which use that format. I think there are more that use the format I advocate. Tell you what: Don't go back and change what you've done. Just use "my" format for any future ones you do. OK?—GoldRingChip 02:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It doesn't really matter either way to me. I like seeing which Congresses a person served in, though (as in the Ohio pages). Is there any way to work that into the standard? Ardric47 (talk) 06:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

renaming politicians[edit]

Hi. Do you want to voice an opinion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress#proposal for renaming reprepresenatives with common names? I am planning to write a replacement proposal based on the feedback received. Thanks--Appraiser (talk) 21:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Candidates Arbitration[edit]

Hey GoldRingChip, thought you might be interested in this debate between Steelbeard and I.--Dr who1975 (talk) 17:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Be Bold in United States Senate special election in Mississippi, 2008[edit]

I'm going to have an aneurysm if I don't ask this.. in our discussion about the campaign web sites in Talk:United States Senate special election in Mississippi, 2008 I said that I was being bold but would gather concensus now that I hit opposition [1].... your response was "Wrong, you should be bold and then gather concnesus"[2]... how does repeating back exacty what I wrote as though you agree mean I'm worng? Was something about the way I wrote it confusing? It's like I said "the sky is blue" and you said "wrong... the sky is blue".--Dr who1975 (talk) 05:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • My mistake! I've appended my comments there.—GoldRingChip 14:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

California's 15th congressional district[edit]

GoldRingChip-

I'm Peter Myers, the Green Party candidate for California's 15th Congressional District. I want to understand better why you have repeatedly cut information out of the entry for California's 15th Congressional District. First you deleted the names of challengers, and although I restored those, you proceeded to exclude most of the external links, including the incumbent and both challengers' websites. Why? My first reaction is to think that you favor the incumbent. What am I not understanding?

Thank you, Peter —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myersforcalifornia (talk • contribs) 01:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Pastor: Electoral history table style[edit]

I noticed your changes to Ed Pastor, and I don't think I agree with them.

First, I don't see what is gained by not using the header attribute for a table. It centers the topic and makes it clear what office is being shown. Am I missing something here? To have the topic just a patch of text means that it looks out-of-place and might get removed by somebody not knowing its purpose. It just doesn't look as good.

As for combining rows in which the same candidate ran... it's a trickier issue, and while it doesn't look bad on the Ed Pastor article, I think it has problems elsewhere. Consider the article Mike Sodrel; with Sodrel likely to run again in 2008, theoretically both columns should be continuous rowspans with Sodrel & Hill's names, except they trade off who wins and who loses. It'd be awkward at best to show this in continuous columns, and would look strange to have the columns randomly cut off for a loss when it's the same person (as in Baron Hill's article). The best compromise, in my mind, is to list the person each time - it is a new election, after all. No need to worry about awkward 2-3-1-4 odd rowspans coming up; just a nice clean grid.

I'd be fine with moving this discussion off to the Congress Wikiproject's talk page if you want to. SnowFire (talk) 21:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to talk:Ed Pastor

TfD nomination of Template:D'oh[edit]

Template:D'oh has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 22:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template talk:USRepSuccessionBox[edit]

I added description of features in the discussion page here: Template talk:USRepSuccessionBox. Foofighter20x (talk) 23:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trent Lott[edit]

Help me out, please... I'm trying to simplify things. User:Allstarecho is being obstinant. See the edit history, the TL discussion page, or his talk page. Thanks. Foofighter20x (talk) 01:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll get to it, but maybe not today.—GoldRingChip 01:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Obstinate" ? Defined as: perversely adhering to an opinion, purpose, or course in spite of reason, arguments, or persuasion. In your first removal, you didn't explain why at all. You just did it with no edit summary. Your second removal you yourself said they were "party offices" of which there was already a party office section in the succession boxes that could have easily contained the information rather than it being deleted. I reverted twice with explanation and haven't touched it since. It's not that big of a deal really. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 03:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mississippi Election Discussions[edit]

Now that the courts have decided both of Mississippi's Senate elections will be held on the same day, I have opened a new discussion about merging the two articles.
Talk:United States Senate election in Mississippi, 2008#Merge 3
I have also opened a debate about potentially splititng the special election controversy section into it's own article. Talk:United States Senate special election in Mississippi, 2008#Split Controversy Section Please read over each debate and weigh them on their individual merits. The subjects are not necessarily linked to each other.--Dr who1975 (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting links to each ordinal congress[edit]

In this edit [3] you deleted all of the individual wikilinks to each ordinal congress in which he served. All of the Minnesota representatives' articles are done that way for easy navigation to any individual congress in which they served. Why don't you think that's a good idea?--Appraiser (talk) 15:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Primary articles[edit]

Hello GoldRingChip, I have reverted your edits to Massachusetts Republican primary, 2008 and Massachusetts Democratic primary, 2008, which had made them redirects to United States presidential election in Massachusetts, 2008. You will find that all Democratic and Republican primaries/caucuses in 2008 have their own separate articles: Template:2008Demprimaries Template:2008Repprimaries. If you think they lack notability you should bring it to AfD instead of carrying out a unilateral merge. Thanks, Joshdboz (talk) 15:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good points. I will propose a merger and allow a consensus to decide.—GoldRingChip 15:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Milton, MA[edit]

Hey GoldRingChip, I was hoping you could tell me what you think about an ongoing problem with the article for Milton, MA. Certain editors have been including information in the introduction which seems not to be appropriate, almost invariably unreferenced and unverifiable claims about the "irish" nature of East Milton. The edits are often made by anonymous IP addresses, and the issue has been ongoing for at least a year now. Could you please take a quick look at the article's history and talk page and tell me what you think? It just seems a shame that a pretty decent article is constantly being let down in the introduction. Thanks. SaintCyprian Talk 20:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mass Primary Merger[edit]

Hey, thanks forletting me know. I need to think about it before I respond.--Dr who1975 (talk) 01:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Spouses of United States Representatives[edit]

As the original creator of Category:Spouses of United States Representatives, I support your proposal to change the category name. --TommyBoy (talk) 06:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Similar "Categories for Renaming" Proposal[edit]

I have initiated a category renaming proposal similar to the one you initiated with respect to Category:Spouses of United States Representatives, to rename Category:First Ladies of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to Category:Spouses of Massachusetts Governors, which as noted in the renaming proposal would take into account that Massachusetts has had at least one "First Gentleman", Chuck Hunt, the husband of former Acting Governor Jane Swift. --TommyBoy (talk) 02:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Members of the United States Representatives in the 109th Congress by seniority[edit]

Hey GoldRingChip, this name is incorrect and unecessarily long. The correct name under this scheme would be

"List of Members of the United States House of Representatives in the 109th Congress by seniority"

I think the original name List of United States Representatives in the 109th Congress by seniority is fine, after all, the fact that it mentions the 109th congress in the title lets people know it's federal representatives. Can you please move it back?--Dr who1975 (talk) 21:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • 'Twas my typo. I've corrected them to "List of Members of the United States House of Representatives in the xth Congress by seniority." They aren't US Reps, they're members of the US House of Reps.—GoldRingChip 21:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SmackBot[edit]

On a recent edit, your (otherwise fantastic) bot added <references>. Why not add {{reflist}} instead?—GoldRingChip 00:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with reflist is that the text is small, making it hard to read - maybe not for you youngsters (?) but for those of us in our forties or with certain visual impairments. SB has done this before and was adding reflist/references as the debate swung back and forth, but the deciding factor in the present case is that the tag is recommended for short lists.
Incidentally there is no very valid reason for using small text for references, in any event, providing the references/footnotes section goes right at the end of the visible page.
Thank you for your kind words.
Rich Farmbrough, 22:00 3 April 2008 (GMT).


TfD nomination of Template:USSecWar[edit]

Template:USSecWar has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — bahamut0013♠♣ 22:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congressional longevity[edit]

Hi. I transposed my and DrWho1975's conversation about converting the lists to table form to the article's talk page, as you requested. I also posted a link to my sandbox, where you can see what I have in mind. JTRH (talk) 17:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. congressional district infobox now accepts obsolete districts[edit]

I just updated Template:Infobox U.S. congressional district to allow for its use with obsolete congressional districts. There are plenty of articles for obsolete districts, that I thought it might be useful. I added the code to the main template, rather than creating a stand-alone template to avoid duplication. I coded it such that the obsolete-specific fields will only be populated if the template includes the field "obsolete = yes". You could in theory include "obsolete=no" for existing districts, but it wouldn't do anything. Let me know what you think.Dcmacnut (talk) 01:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think it's well done. You've done a good job. However, I'm not a fan of Infoboxes. I suppose I might use this someday.—GoldRingChip 01:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Wynn's impending resignation[edit]

Hi (again). I wasn't the original author of the paragraph in the 2008 Congressional elections article about Albert Wynn's impending resignation. However, I edited it so that the speculation was removed and the entire statement was sourced (the information came from The Washington Post). It's documented that he's announced his resignation, that Gov. O'Malley has the power to either call a special or leave the seat vacant, and that it's a heavily Democratic district. I did remove the previous editor's statement that the candidate who defeated Wynn in the primary was almost certain to win in November, or words to that effect. There was nothing speculative, unsourced or otherwise crystal-ball-like about what was left. Thanks. JTRH (talk) 14:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. JTRH (talk) 14:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A User[edit]

Hi! I noticed you reverted the edits of User:Mateek on the state constitution. I am having some trouble with him myself as he posted some additions on the Immanuel page that I reverted (they were without any citation). He reverted them back, so I added in "citations needed" notes and started a discussion on the talk page. His response is essentially that I am wrong to want citations and that common sense doesn't need citations. This isn't talk radio - "common sense" does need citations on Wikipedia. I am letting this one go until I have others to support my actions. But do you have any suggestions for steps to take next? Steps to undo? I have tried to remain dispassionate, but his incredible bias and undertone of nastiness have made it more difficult. I write you as an experienced administrator from a casual Wikipedia editor. - JerseyRabbi (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply[edit]

I replied to JerseyRabbi's comments on my own talk page, as well as a reply to yours there, previously. I'll now add here, that the 30 words of so I added to Immanuel seemed supported by the article itself. The higher mission of Wikipedia seems to encourage bulk opinions: Wikipedia:About says: "Visitors do not need specialized qualifications to contribute, since their primary role is to write articles that cover existing knowledge;..." I also have looked into measures I can take to protect my edits on that page and another on religion, because I don't feel like allowing vital important facts to be hidden by anyone. Mateek (talk) 03:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congressional districts[edit]

Thanks for the suggestions. I'll work on them. (And it wasn't me that put Mike Thompson being a Blue Dog.)

I am also thinking about putting descriptions of each district in their respective decades, since most of California's districts changed with every census since the 1860s. Socal gal at heart (talk) 12:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't worry - I'm not blaming, I'm suggesting. A description of the districts as they changed is a very good idea!—GoldRingChip 12:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Need Assistance on editing[edit]

GoldRingChip -

I've noticed that you follow up on a lot of my edits. Cool. I just substantially edited Flood Control Act of 1965 but I can't seem to get the reflist to work. I even copy and pasted from another article, but it doesn't appear or show up. Can you assist? Thanks. Don'tKnowItAtAll (talk) 22:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • No problem. Acutally, you did it all right. You just made a little typo. See my change. You forgot to close the end of a </ref> tag. You wrote <ref>, instead of </ref>.—GoldRingChip 01:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Sometimes it is hard to find one's own errors. Don'tKnowItAtAll (talk) 11:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mississippi's 1st congressional district special election, 2008[edit]

Once party candidstes have been chosen, their names are put in Bold text to indicate that these candidates are still in the race. You've never had a problem with this before. Why now?--Dr who1975 (talk) 13:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm sorry if I'm being inconsistent. Maybe I keep changing my mind.
  • Imagine this article looking back from 10 years in the future. Why should one name be bolded over the others? We state that the person is the nominee, or lost the run-off or whatever. That should be sufficient.
  • You state, "…these candidates are still in the race." That is a statement indicating an ongoing race, but I think it can be better suited to a historical article style.—GoldRingChip 14:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My thought was the bold text can be taken off after the election has concluded.--Dr who1975 (talk) 19:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? Why should formatting change because of a historical event? Especially a predictable event (the election will be held). I understand the content will change, but Wikipedia is not a campaign website or a news site or any other such thing.—GoldRingChip 20:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The page documents it as a current event as well as a historical one... once along list of candidates has been witled down to a few party candidates... putting their names in bold will help set them apart as the remaining active candidates. People go to these pages in order to get a picture of the current situation and this helps with that.--Dr who1975 (talk) 21:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "current event" banner is a warning, not a declaration. It warns the reader to expect rapidly changing information. I still don't agree fully with the bolding, but it's not really a big deal this time. My warning to you: I have no long-term memory on wikipedia, and I'm likely to change the bolds again sometime in the future. Sorry in advance.—GoldRingChip 23:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK... I always wondered why you don't get more involved with United States House of Representatives elections, 2008 as people remove former candidates from that page all the time. I guess this answers why.--Dr who1975 (talk) 04:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Error on United States House of Representatives elections, 2008[edit]

sorry, wasn't paying attention--Dr who1975 (talk) 02:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Template:Elections are historical[edit]

You probably need to be aware of this.--Dr who1975 (talk) 00:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous facts about Congress[edit]

I've posted a response on the 110th Congress talk page. Your removal of those sections is fine with me. JTRH (talk) 19:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

House races with no incumbents[edit]

I posted a comment on Talk:United States House of Representatives elections, 2008 about how I think the Gilchrest and Wynn seats should be listed. I'd appreciate your thoughts. JTRH (talk) 14:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection of United States Senate[edit]

Is there supposed to be banner or icon at United States Senate since you semi-protected it? If it isn't necessary to have one, just ignore this. Either way, thanks for defending against the vandals. -Rrius (talk) 22:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Massachusetts non-appointment process for vacant U.S. Senate offices[edit]

Where would you draft and insert a section about the inability of a Massachusetts governor to appoint a U.S. Senator, and the mandated special election process? -- Chapter 236 of the Acts of 2004 - Mostly MGL chaper 53 & 54

Looks like you've already done some work on this. What do you need from me?—GoldRingChip 01:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't decide if I should start an article--or if there is a suitable article that such a section would fit in. -- Yellowdesk (talk)

  • Thanks. I was primarily stymied on where to go with it. Thanks for updates to list of Massachusetts Senators, and some of the various odd end and start of term occupants. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 02:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Usscr[edit]

Just a heads up, I've merged the functionality of {{usscr}} into {{ussc}} using parser functions. I'm going to start migrating existing articles. If you have any objection let me know. --Selket Talk 01:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Names of Census Articles[edit]

I have opened a discussion at Talk:United States Census, 2000#Requested move about renaming all the year-specific US Census articles. I see that you are active on the Census 2000 article, so I am requesting your input. -Rrius (talk) 06:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Intelligence gathering legislation[edit]

Hi, I thought you'd like to know that I've posted a comment at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_June_15#Category:Intelligence_gathering_legislation. Cgingold (talk) 23:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Senate EPW Subcommittee - incorrect move[edit]

User:Neutrality recently move United States Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Public Sector Solutions to Global Warming, Oversight, and Children's Health Protection to a new page name without giving a reason. The new page misspells Environment as ''Envronment without the "i". I've tried undoing the change, but it doesn't seem to be taking. Could you take a look and revert the move if possible? I'd just cut and paste back to the old name, but then we'd lose all of the article history. I've posted a question about this on his talk page.Dcmacnut (talk) 21:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • It looks good now. Did Neutrality fix it him/herself? —GoldRingChip 22:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review[edit]

I have posted a question at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Category:United_States_elections_in_Massachusetts which you may be able to answer. Can you please return to that discussion to answer it? Stifle (talk) 11:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hiddencat[edit]

The hiddencat template goes on the category itself :) --- RockMFR 22:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Please see[edit]

Template:Please see has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

109th Congress Edit dispute[edit]

It appears a wikipedia user using the handle "neutrality" as altered an edit I made to the "109th Congress" page and I was curious why. It appears the edit has 1) deleted or removed relevant information regarding and relating to the historic "Do-Nothing Congress" reference, 2) inserted an out-of-context POV quotation, tangentially related to one of the sources cited and 3) is incorrectly sourced. Please advise. Kind regards--Happysomeone (talk) 18:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Let me look. I'll get back to you here. —GoldRingChip 20:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks GoldRingChip. I appreciate your adjudication, as I felt I'd needlessly open myself up to a POV attack if I unilaterally did it myself. Edit makes it better, and I agree with your reasoning. Cheers --Happysomeone (talk) 22:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Former Members by State[edit]

Is there an easy way to convert a table to alphabetical order by last name without manually moving the text? For some reason, the West Virginia list is listed by first name. Do you have a template or something to make it more like the Commonwealth of Virginia's list? Thanks. 24.3.249.174 (talk) 15:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Alas, no. Sorry. I think it has to be done manually. —GoldRingChip 18:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Collapsible option[edit]

Hi again.

Ideally, I think I'd agree that bolding "({{{state|This}}} is the default.)" is worthwhile, but not at the moment, since I've noticed that many templates omit to set the {{{state}}} (or it isn't set correctly). Do you know if/how there's a way for the template to look at the {{{state}}} parameter of the template in which it's transcluded and thereby render the correct phrase automatically? Otherwise, I think I'd leave it unbolded for now.

  • I don't mind leaving it unbolded. I don't exactly understand why that should be done, but I've removed the bolding.—GoldRingChip 18:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as spaces between pipe (vertical-line) characters and subsequent parameter names can lead to confusion/mistakes/bogus carriage-returns etc when wrapped, I wonder if you'd consider removing the spaces between the pipe characters and "state=" in the examples. Sardanaphalus (talk) 18:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've also removed the spaces, per your request. I like the spaces for visual clarity, but I understand your concern about possible confusion/etc.—GoldRingChip 18:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS As well as unbolding the phrase, I think I'd also rephrase it as "(This is usually the default.)" in order to quash assumptions/expectations.

  • Thanks for the above. By adding the "usually", I just mean to prompt anyone not already aware of the observations above (that {{{state}}} doesn't tend to be set, or is set incorrectly, or has been changed, etc) not to take "This is the default" at face value. Do you know if it's possible to have {{collapsible option}} set its {{{state}}} parameter automatically, depending on where it's been transcluded? Sardanaphalus (talk) 19:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tabs[edit]

Hi... I see you use tabs, and that you added tabs to Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Congress... I've been thinking of parameterizing these to make them more generically useful. Would you, or the project, be interested in being a guinea pig? See my talk, just now. Jooperscoopers has come up with a rather clever usage idea. (I'll watch here but you're welcome to chime in there) ++Lar: t/c 18:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest trying it with the project, not with me. My talk page is far busier, so it will be easier to revert the project if necessary. However, if you're successful in whatever you're trying, I would be happys to have you implement it here. Good luck!—GoldRingChip 18:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Representative races (maps)[edit]

Actually, I started changing them in a different way (United States House of Representatives elections in Alabama, 2008) after an Admin asked me to link to the Wikipedia copies of the maps rather than the external links. I combined that change with your interest in not having the links in the titles. I prefer the Districts down a level (as someone else had set up the existing articles), as imo it makes the Contents box more readable. The embedded thumnails work, and I didn't realize they don't add to the byte-count (although I expect they make the page slower to load). States with lots of races (California, etc.) are problematical. People on dial-up shouldn't have to wait for ages to read an article, and I'm afraid that's what embedded images will do. Anyway, I doubt I'll have time to do anything one way or the other with the articles any more. Flatterworld (talk) 12:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Frankly, I wouldn't go through the effort of linking the maps (or incorporating them, for that matter). It's not key to the article. Just put a link to the district article, and the reader can click there and then see the maps.—GoldRingChip 13:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very few readers know a map is even available in the district articles, so they lose interest. That's why I added the map links in the first place. They may not be 'key' to you, but they're important to the readers. Flatterworld (talk) 21:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good point. With that in mind, therefore, I would prefer to include the map (wiki-version) in the article and not the link to the National Atlas.—GoldRingChip 23:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'll agree with that, but because the maps seem to have such as assortment of name formats, not even following a pattern within each state, it's going to take quite awhile to make all the changes. Is this something that could be done by a bot somehow? Flatterworld (talk) 21:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not a bot-user, but I'm pretty sure it's not bot-able. However, it's a low priority, as things go. I've changed a couple of them already. (check my Contributions). But I wouldn't worry about them one way or the other.—GoldRingChip 22:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Senate seniority[edit]

Perhaps I'm missing something, but I see Talk: Senate seniority as a talk page but Senate seniority has been redirected. Which is right? Thanks Tvoz/talk 08:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're right. I've now merged the two and renamed the merged article, Seniority in the United States Senate. If you don't like what I've done, again please let me know. Perhaps I should have started a discussion before making the changes, but I think the result is OK. —GoldRingChip 11:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That looks fine to me - I was looking for the right article to wikilink "junior" or "senior" senator to, as in the first line of Hillary Rodham Clinton, and this looks right. Thanks! Tvoz/talk 02:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{UnitedStatesCodeSec}} not working[edit]

Noticed you were one of the editors on the {{UnitedStatesCodeSec}} template. It does not seem to be displaying properly, even on the template talk that shows the example. It's not displaying on Income tax in the United States either. Morphh (talk) 18:03, 01 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wow, you are right! I wonder why I deleted the code back in June and why nobody noticed it until now. I've fixed it now, thanks. —GoldRingChip 22:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{USPL}}[edit]

Linking the text "Pub.L." to Public law for Congresses before the 100th seems spurious. The link on "Pub.L." should explain the abbreviation. The absence of a link seems preferable to Public law. Public_law#Alternate_usage gets close, but linking to a subsection seems fragile. An article like United States Statutes at Large seems needed.

Until an article on US Public Law citation exists to link to, I contemplate adding {{Anchor|PubL}} <!-- [[Template:USPL]] links here. --> to Public_law#Alternate_usage and linking "Pub.L." in Template:USPL to it.

As this will have consequences for many pages, I though I'd ask first.

Some of the articles that link to Public law seem to expect Public_law#Alternate_usage.

-- davidz (talk) 20:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Massachusetts's 3rd congressional district[edit]

GoldRingChip......I ended up adding a column for the congressional sessions for each representative for my home congressional district. I know at one time you suggested it. Let me know what you think...does it make the article too long???? I think I'm only going to add it to the 3rd, since I don't think I want to go and change the session every 2 years for other districts........Send along any comments to my page ....Pvmoutside (talk) 21:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks good. I stretched the Congresses when they overlap multiple Reps because of deaths/resignations, etc.—GoldRingChip 11:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Talk:Ohio's 11th congressional district special election, 2008[edit]

You are invited to contibute to the deletion discussion on this page.--Dr who1975 (talk) 17:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CodeFedReg[edit]

Hi GoldRingChip. If you have some time, would you please add Template:CodeFedReg to en.wikisource.org, similar to other such Citation templates already there. Thanks. Suntag (talk) 19:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dates[edit]

D'oh I have always gotten June and July confused and frequently March and May. Sorry and thanks. If you need to reach me, please post on my talk. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Trademarks[edit]

Is there a citation template for Canadian Trademarks?

The only thing I could find was one for US Trademarks. jonathon (talk) 12:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'll have to learn how to create a template. More specifically, testing one, before releasing it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo_daoist/Canadian_Trademark_template jonathon (talk) 10:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Political party strength in Massachusetts[edit]

Hi, GoldRingChip. We seem to frequently edit similar kinds of articles here, so I've seen you around a lot. With regard to the edit you made to this article, I have both a compliment and a question. First, I think the new table header you made is great, and since then I've been applying it to the other articles in this series. However, I noticed that you changed the order from year-descending to year-ascending. While this is more in line with chronological tables across Wikipedia, all the other articles in the series Political party strength in U.S. states are year-descending. Do you know whether there is a way to more easily reverse the order on each of these pages? I can't figure out an efficient way to do it. Do you have any ideas? Thanks. Qqqqqq (talk) 18:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I generally prefer year-ascending order, like I did with Political party strength in Massachusetts. I have no opinion as to whether it ought to be consistent throughout the series of articles. I don't know how to reverse the order without doing it manually, which can be a real hardship. Sorry.—GoldRingChip 18:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Seal shrewsbury.gif)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Seal shrewsbury.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maine Representatives[edit]

Hey GoldRingChip.......3 reps resigned on March 3, causing late installations in the following terms for ME-4 (Peleg Sprague in 1829, George Evans in 1841, and Charles Boutelle in 1901). I didn't note the resigs in those congresses, but did note the late seats for the successors in the following congresses, FYI.........Pvmoutside (talk) 01:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed changes to Template:USBill[edit]

The Library of Congress recently upgraded their Thomas servers to include permanent URLs for retrieving legislation, called "Legislative Handles." See the Thomas FAQ on the new URLs and an article from the Sunlight Foundation here. These handles will make it a lot easier to link to bill results rather than the "search/query" syntax currently used. These permanent links won't change over time, meaning less chance for broken links. It also simplifies links by removing leading zeros for Congresses earlier than the 100th.

I've created an updated version of USBill in my sandbox using the new syntax at User:Dcmacnut/DCTemplates2. Since the new syntax does not support many of the old USBill variables I included a switch function from the old to new variables to ensure existing articles that use USBill work properly. Before I make these changes to USBill, could you check to make sure the changes work? I've checked it out and don't see any problems. ThanksDCmacnut<> 16:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks really good! I suggest you make the change. —GoldRingChip 18:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I made the changes. I think I accounted for all the variables. Sounds like THOMAS is going to start using handles for a great deal of information, which will make template creation a lot simpler in the future.DCmacnut<> 19:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

s:United States Statutes at Large - thanks![edit]

Just wanted to say thanks for your contributions at s:United States Statutes at Large! We are a long way from filling in the missing content, but as you said, perhaps some day…. Any assistance you might be able to provide with proofing the volume 1 page scans would be gratefully (and enthusiastically) appreciated! Tarmstro99 (talk) 01:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great work on the Declaration of Independence, thanks! I appreciate your using the templates (sidenotes, etc.), but if that is too much of a hassle, it’s perfectly OK if you just clean up the text, leaving the template work to other editors. Tarmstro99 (talk) 17:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congress[edit]

Are you referring to the ISO dates? Are you aware that our readers (and the many WPians who have not chosen date prefs and logged in) see only the raw date formatting. Removal of the square brackets has, indeed, brought home the issue.

I think the ISO dates are unfortunate, since many (most?) readers won't understand them, in particular whether "1944-07-01" means January 7 or July 1. They also look bad against the publication details that come after them (e.g., "Sess. 2, Pub.L. 78-225, 58 Stat. 8"). It's a bore, I know, but are you interested in converting them to US format to match the rest of the article? It can only be done manually.

BTW, I think the Congress articles and those on Congressional Acts are an excellent achievement and an important resource. Well done.

I'm off to bed now, so won't respond further until tomorrow. Tony (talk) 14:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sidenotes[edit]

I see you’ve moved the sidenotes on the Statutes at Large scans back to the left-side of the page. Let’s leave them on the right—that way, they do not keep flipping back and forth from side to side (seemingly at random, to the reader who has not closely observed the scanned originals) when the proofread pages are transcluded together into a single document. Perhaps we could create a new template that would display left sidenotes within the Page: namespace but right sidenotes outside it; but for now, I think it avoids reader confusion if the marginalia all appear on the same side of the main text. Tarmstro99 (talk) 19:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK. I'm not sure when we're looking for visual similarity or content similarity.—GoldRingChip 20:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You’re not alone in your uncertainty; that’s not an issue on which WS (which is much smaller than WP and has fewer well established policies) has really come to rest. In general, I think most editors would say that the first and most important step is to get the content right. Matching the physical appearance of the published source is something that some editors try to do pretty assiduously (even creating special templates to match the typography of the original source), others less so. I sort of split the difference, myself; I think that within the Page: namespace there is a value in matching the physical appearance of the source scans (if for no other reason than it aids proofreading when the page you see in your browser more closely resembles the scanned original), but in the main namespace I think visual appearance takes a back seat to the content—individual users’ style sheets or browser settings should control the appearance of the displayed page, not the decisions of a 19th-century typesetter. But opinions vary.
One last thing, if you haven’t already been doing so, be sure to increment the page quality counter (the little purple/red/yellow/green radio buttons) when you proofread a page! It’s a nice form of positive reinforcement to see the gradual improvement on the index page as more and more pages are proofed.
Great job on the USStatHeader template, by the way—I think that will really simplify what had been a pretty cumbersome step of the process. Tarmstro99 (talk) 21:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One more very small suggestion, intended to keep you from doing unnecessary extra work. On pages of the Statutes at Large that contain only a single chapter of the text, it's not necessary to label sections with the <section begin=chapXXX /> … <section end=chapXXX /> tag pairs. On pages that include portions of more than one chapter (such as p. 54, which has parts of both Chapters 9 and 10), it’s necessary to <section>-tag the chapter start- and end-points so the chapter names can be fed as a section= parameter into the {{Page}} template. But the {{Page}} template doesn’t require a section= parameter; it’s optional. If that parameter is omitted, the template just grabs the referenced page in its entirety (except, of course, for anything that has been <noinclude>’ed). So you can leave the chapter designations off pages like 61 and it will still transclude just fine. Tarmstro99 (talk) 01:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Elected to fill vacancy"[edit]

I was trying use the format that I noticed under each Congress to stay consistent with each Congress figuring changes would be made to eventually make them consistent with each other. I'll use whatever format everyone thinks works........Personally, I have no preference but resignation/death dates and installation dates seem to be part of the winning formula??????Pvmoutside (talk) 01:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I prefer the style used in 1st United States Congress for members of both houses, use it for guidance and consistency:
    • For beginning of tenure: In the House of Reps, all members are elected, so their method of induction is irrelevant in the "Members" section. In the Senate, however, some are appointed, some are elected: in the "Members" section, we just note the dates, but in the "Changes in Membership" section we note the reasons. The problem, you may have noticed, is that earlier Congresses don't have a "Changes in Membership" section for differentiating Senator's methods of induction. THEREFORE, in those cases, you can mention in the "Members" section if Senators were appointed or elected.
    • For end of tenure: if either Rep or Senator dies, resigns, is expelled, or whatever, then it ought to be mentioned in the "Changes of Membership." If there isn't such a section, then you can put it in the "Members" section until a "Changes of Membership" section is created.
    • Eventually, all discussion of a member's sudden in/out should be discussed only in "Changes of Membership" to avoid redundancy, and the "Members" section should employ only the dates, not the reasons/methods.
    • Finally, "died in office" is redundant. If their death didn't occur in office, then it doesn't matter to this list.—GoldRingChip 12:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

111th Congress[edit]

Hi!

Sorry. I'm not used to the quite rigid reference requirements in the English wikipedia. I had mistakenly thought that information given in a reference could be used elsewhere in the article. I've added a reference to my addition to make it clear. Greetings. --141.35.15.102 (talk) 16:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CongLinks/GovLinks[edit]

As one of those involved in Template:CongLinks, please see the discussion on Template:GovLinks (which I created to use for U.S. governors) at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:GovLinks. I didn't expect there to be a controversy over its existence, as I based it on CongLinks. Flatterworld (talk) 03:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

State house speakers[edit]

Hi. I wonder if perhaps we could start work on reaching a standard for speakers of state houses of representatives and senate presidents. Right now we have:

Clearly this is a bit of a mess, the result of people working independently of each other without a common standard. We should look toward adopting one: "list of speakers..." or simply "speaker"? "List of presidents..." or simply "President"? -- Biruitorul Talk 22:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Match-up summary[edit]

I simply copied the box as used in other states. 'Re-election' means the incumbent stood for re-election. Other options I saw used in those other states were 'Open' and 'Defeated in primary', as applicable. Some states had their own versions of boxes, so I didn't add this box. In the interests of consistency, perhaps you'd like to start a discussion within the U.S. Congress project about standardization of the box? Flatterworld (talk) 22:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eucharistman[edit]

See Special:Contributions/Eucharistman. Is there anything we can do about this? It bothers me that the user keeps on creating several articles with no regards to sourcing (he COULD stub them, but doesn't), wikilinks, categories, etc. Not sure how something like this is handled. Thanks. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 17:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from Eucharistman[edit]

I will no longer post dates in the incorrect way. Thank you for letting me know. Sorry it took so long to get to you. I'm still new at this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eucharistman (talk • contribs) 20:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been writing a book over the past two years and have done quite a bit of research on the statutes, but I have had some things occur in my personal life and don't intend to publish. Instead I am putting the information on wikipedia.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eucharistman (talk • contribs) 13:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Mikulski's height[edit]

I think an IP user is making subtle edits dealing with the physical appearance of Barbara Mikulski. At first I thought his or her edits at Women in the United States Senate were in good faith, but since seeing the edits at Barbara Mikulski, I am no longer convinced. I have already reverted the editor twice at the former article, and I do not want to violate the 3 revert rule. Could you please take a look?

-Rrius (talk) 06:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The first looks good faith. I'd revert it, though, because it's just confusing- 1 person does not a row make. I will take care of that.
  • The second may be good faith. Often people want to know how tall a person is. However, it doesn't belong in the lede, so I'd move that data down somewhere. Neither appear to be vandalism. If you can find a source for her height, you ought to restore that data somewhere in her article down in a lower paragraph with a citation. —GoldRingChip 11:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List of United States Senators in the 111th Congress by seniority[edit]

Please see me response to your comments.--Dr who1975 (talk) 15:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted categories[edit]

Hi, re Category:United States Senate candidates and the parallel House one: these categories are subject to speedy deletion based on the old CfD, unless there is a more recent CfD or DRV that reverses this decision. I can't see one myself, but I thought I'd check with you in case I'm missing it. If there is not but you want to re-create, I think you can propose doing so at WP:DRV. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, I see you simultaneously posted at my page. We'll take it up here if that's alright with you. Just to respond to what you said there, I don't think there's a time limit to the speedy deletion for re-created material. There needs to be an intervening DRV or CfD on the issue. (By the way, it's me who speedily deleted it.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I reverted some of your edits adding the deleted category Category:United States Senate candidates. I also saw you undeleted that category (which later was deleted again). There was a consensus to delete these categories. Especially since you were the original creator of the category, you should not unilaterally decide to recreate those. Which I saw you just did again. You know of course that Wikipedia:Deletion review exists? Garion96 (talk) 00:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See the above discussion. Yes, GoldRingChip, I'm not sure why you're re-creating these. I'm not intending to have a wheel war with you, but I think the procedure is to have an intervening DRV if there is a desire to re-create. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoops. Yes, let's solve it here. These two categories were deleted today based on a CFD from early 2007 - presumably after the 2006 elections were all squared away. There were very few articles about failed candidates which merited survival, so those articles probably were AFD'd and the categories were no longer needed. But as the 2008 election cycle approached, the categories were both created and well used. And now that the 2008 elections are over, there are several articles this time which will survive deletion. So the categories should survive, too. In face there was a CFD discussion which mentioned the Reps category here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 November 14. I'm not really sure what/how to do a DRV. I think I did it once before. —GoldRingChip 00:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please use deletion review. In one night you three times recreated the categories. Personally I agree with the original discussion, these categories are a good example of overcategorization. The original discussion was here, not really deleted because of lack of articles but actually the opposite. Garion96 (talk) 00:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would also argue it's overcategorization and we've deleted numerous other "candidacies" categories before. That said, there's a chance there may be a consensus to re-create them based on your explanation above. WP:DRV has a fairly step-by-step process for starting one. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sec of State[edit]

Looking at our wikipedia pages (which, to be fair, are not always accurate), it looks like new administrations and their cabinet members, in the modern era, are sworn in the same day as the President and VP. Just about all of Bush's people have Jan 20 as their start date, from Powell as Sec of State to Rice as Nat Sec Advisor to Bush's first trade representative. Am I assuming too much?--Dr who1975 (talk) 23:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was wondering that myself. I have no idea. If you learn anything about it, let me know.—GoldRingChip 01:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I responded at Dr Who's page with my take on this. As far as National Security Advisor goes, that position isn't subject to Senate confirmation, so the start date would coincide with inauguration.DCmacnut<> 01:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States political leader templates[edit]

There is some discussion of the format of templates in Category:United States political leader templates such as {{U.S. State Secretaries of State}} going on at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography#State_by_state_100.2C000_population_city_and_mayors_templates. Feel free to discuss.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Oregon Senators[edit]

I reversed some of the changes you made at List of United States Senators from Oregon. I am not trying to be a jerk or work against you, but it seems we just differ as to how these things should look. Anyway, I wanted to give you a heads-up. I also want to say for the record that it is absolutely not personal, that I respect you as an editor, and I do want to work with you on the articles where our interests overlap. -Rrius (talk) 04:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's fine. It wasn't a big deal anyway. You reverted the style issues and kept the content, which is OK with me. Thanks for the heads-up.—GoldRingChip 11:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AFD: United States House of Representatives special elections in Illinois, 2009[edit]

Is there a reason that you did not transclude United States House of Representatives special elections in Illinois, 2009 at WP:AFD?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean.—GoldRingChip 21:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have not followed proper procedure and the article is not listed at WP:AFD. You have to add the discussion page thereso that reviewers can see it. Only you and I know about the discussion page right now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're right. I completely forgot that. Thanks for letting me know. It's all fixed now.

talkback thingy[edit]

Hello, GoldRingChip. You have new messages at Template talk:CongBio.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Vandalism to Democratic Party article[edit]

User:ZippyGoogle recently moved Democratic Party (United States) to Terrorist Party (United States). I have reverted the vandalism and posted a warning on his talk page. Just wanted to bring this to your attention in case my warning was overly harsh and to ask your assistance in deleting the redirect that was created by my reversion.DCmacnut<> 22:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

California 32[edit]

I took a crack at the Illinois specials page, but I noticed we need, or soon will, a California's 32nd congressional district special election, 2009 article. Do you know anyone who would be qualified/interested? -Rrius (talk) 23:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Until I receive an apology for the wholly unnecessary warning at my talk page, I will not speak with that editor on anything other than the Illinois article and that warning. -Rrius (talk) 18:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Women in the Senate table[edit]

I just managed to confuse myself with the second revert. Sorry about that. On really looking at the table, I wondered whether we could skip the "previous" column, since it is just the difference between the other two and the numbers are so small. This next question is going to sound snarky, but I mean it earnestly: do we need to keep the "previous" column for people who are just too stupid to figure that out? I sometimes struggle with finding the line between being inclusive of people who are not terribly gifted and not pandering to the lowest common denominator. Either way, I will leave it to your judgment. -Rrius (talk) 02:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, it may be obvious or stupid. But it does provide some subtle information. Like the states that used to have female senators but don't anymore. And it makes it sortable by any column. I say let's keep it with the table.—GoldRingChip 02:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pennsylvania's 9th congressional district[edit]

I'm having a little trouble trying to figure out the term dates Isaac Griffin and David Bard. Isaac Griffin according to the Congressional Biography assumed the seat after the death of John Smilie (died Dec 30, 1812), but began it May 24, 1813??? His successor David Bard began his term March 4, 1813????? Can you help????? Feel free to reply on my talk page Pvmoutside (talk) 12:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Got it! I made the appropriate changes to the 9th Thanks! Pvmoutside (talk) 01:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Burris nomination and Illinois special elections[edit]

See my comments at Talk:United States House of Representatives special elections in Illinois, 2009#Burris nomination. I know you've backed off from watching this article, but I think Blagojevich's nomination of Burris (regardless of whether Burris actually is seated) removes any speculation on whether a current member of the House will get nominated. Thoughts?DCmacnut<> 20:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree with your point on that page. However, I am going to abstain from comments there.—GoldRingChip 21:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GoldRingChip/Archives/2008&oldid=1083927053"