User talk:GoldRingChip

User Page

Talk Pages

Toolset

To do

Bibliography

sandbox

HarvError

sb2

sb3

sb4

sb5

sb6

If you leave a new message on this page, I will reply on this page unless you ask me to reply elsewhere.

I will post my replies here on this page!

Leave a message here.

United States Senate election in Mississippi, 2008

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)

With Respect… You're wrong

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)

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)

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)

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)

Dr Who1975

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)

• 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?—Markles 22:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Boston Celtics

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)

• No, thanks!—Markles 18:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Teacher Tax Cut Act

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)

• No, thanks.—Markles 17:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

User: Dr who1975's sockpuppetry case

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)

• OK. I've posted a comment on the case.—Markles 18:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • So I got through it. Thank you for your assistance. I owe you.--Dr who1975 (talk) 15:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
      • You're welcome.—Markles 11:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:Historical election article

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

Moved to Template talk:Historical election article § Mainspace?

Template:United States presidential election, 2008

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)

Congressional districts lists of representatives

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)

• 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.—Markles 21:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Massachusetts Wikiproject

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)

I knew you were going to do that

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

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

Lists of US Representatives

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)

• 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?—Markles 02:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • 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)

renaming politicians

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)

Declined Candidates Arbitration

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

• The link doesn't work right. Where's the correct debate?—Markles 19:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Steelbeard wants to remove the potential/declined candidates from the Mississippi special election page. It's been restarted at Talk:United States Senate special election in Mississippi, 2008#dispute resolution... you can see this edit and the last few comments on this exchange if you would like more backround.--Dr who1975 (talk) 19:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Have you had a chance to look this over?--Dr who1975 (talk) 23:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Oh well.. the debate has reached a conclusion in any event. I'm really surprised you didn't take part. After all, you created Template:Elections are historical. Sorry if I'm bothering you.--Dr who1975 (talk) 19:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
        • I was unavailable. But I'm glad it's over.—Markles 19:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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)

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

California's 15th congressional district

Markles-

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)

Moved to Talk:California's 15th congressional district

Ed Pastor: Electoral history table style

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)

Moved to talk:Ed Pastor

TfD nomination of Template:D'oh

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)

Template talk:USRepSuccessionBox

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

• Thank you!—Markles 23:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Trent Lott

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)

• I'll get to it, but maybe not today.—Markles 01:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "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)
    • This is not the place to argue it. I wasn't the one who made those changes. Go to Talk:Trent Lott. —Markles 07:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Mississippi Election Discussions

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)

Deleting links to each ordinal congress

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)

Moved to Talk:Bruce Vento § Deleting links to each ordinal congress

Primary articles

Hello Markles, 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)

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

Milton, MA

Hey Markles, 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)

Mass Primary Merger

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

Category:Spouses of United States Representatives

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)

Similar "Categories for Renaming" Proposal

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)

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

Hey Markles, 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)

• '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.—Markles 21:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

SmackBot

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

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).

• Fair enough. —Markles 06:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:USSecWar

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)

Congressional longevity

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)

U.S. congressional district infobox now accepts obsolete districts

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)

• 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.—Markles 01:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Albert Wynn's impending resignation

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)

• Fair enough. I'll restore it.—Markles 14:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

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

A User

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

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)

Congressional districts

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)

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

Need Assistance on editing

Markles -

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)

• 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>.—Markles 01:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Sometimes it is hard to find one's own errors. Don'tKnowItAtAll (talk) 11:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Mississippi's 1st congressional district special election, 2008

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)

• 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.—Markles 14:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

My thought was the bold text can be taken off after the election has concluded.--Dr who1975 (talk) 19:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• 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.—Markles 20:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

• 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.—Markles 23:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

Error on United States House of Representatives elections, 2008

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

• OK.—Markles 02:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Miscellaneous facts about Congress

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)

House races with no incumbents

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)

Semi-protection of United States Senate

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)

• Yes, I suppose so. Let me try to do it. Stay tuned.—Markles 23:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Done.—Markles 23:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:United States federal commercial legislation

Category:United States federal commercial legislation, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. – Cgingold (talk) 10:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

• Initial (inadequate) sourcing:
• http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/seslaw04/sl040236.htm
• NYTimes: By KATIE ZEZIMA Published: July 2, 2004 National Briefing | New England: Massachusetts: Senate Approves Interim-Appointment Bill
  -- Yellowdesk (talk) 01:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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)

• For the time being, I suggest List of United States Senators from Massachusetts. You might also want to reference it in Governor of Massachusetts and Massachusetts General Court. I'd be happy to help, but I'm too busy to tackle it in the next couple of days.—Markles 02:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• 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)

Template:Usscr

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)

• Looks good!—Markles 02:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Names of Census Articles

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)

Category:Intelligence gathering legislation

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)

Senate EPW Subcommittee - incorrect move

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)

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

Deletion review

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)

Hiddencat

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

• AH!!!! Let me try it…—Markles 23:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Yup. Thanks. How did you find what I was doing?—Markles 23:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Please see

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)

Proposal for merger notification

Hi! I'm suggesting a merger for New Mexico's 3rd congressional district election, 2008, an article you worked on. Flatterworld (talk) 20:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD on Title 15 of the United States Code

Hi! Thought you might want to weigh in on This AfD, since it would affect Template:USCTitles. I filled in a lot of red links there with you a couple of years ago. Hope all is well! Jokestress (talk) 21:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

109th Congress Edit dispute

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)

• Let me look. I'll get back to you here. —Markles 20:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:109th United States Congress § The new "Do-Nothing Congress"?

Thanks Markles. 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)

Former Members by State

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)

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

Template:Collapsible option

Hi again.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Template%3ACollapsible_option&diff=233752212&oldid=233733668

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.—Markles 18:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

• 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.—Markles 18:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

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.

• Done. But (again) why?—Markles 18:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• 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)

Tabs

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)

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!—Markles 18:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

U.S. Representative races (maps)

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)

• 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.—Markles 13:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • 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.—Markles 23:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
      • 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)
        • 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.—Markles 22:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Senate seniority

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)

• 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. —Markles 11:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

{{UnitedStatesCodeSec}} not working

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)

• 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. —Markles 22:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

{{USPL}}

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)

Moved to Template talk:USPL

Massachusetts's 3rd congressional district

Markles......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)

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

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

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

Template:CodeFedReg

Hi Markles. 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)

Dates

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)

Flags in navigation templates of elections

As one of the past contributors regarding their usage I'd like to notify you about Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (icons)#Template:Slovenian elections. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Canadian Trademarks

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)

• I'm sorry, I don't know. Maybe you should start one. Be bold! —Markles 10:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

Political party strength in Massachusetts

Hi, Markles. 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)

• 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.—Markles 18:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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)

Maine Representatives

Hey Markles.......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)

• Thanks. What are your sources?—Markles 01:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed changes to Template:USBill

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)

• Looks really good! I suggest you make the change. —Markles 18:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

s:United States Statutes at Large - thanks!

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)

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)

Congress

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)

Sidenotes

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)

• OK. I'm not sure when we're looking for visual similarity or content similarity.—Markles 20:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)