User talk:Markles/Archive 3
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| User Page | Talk Pages | Toolset | To Do | Images | Sandbox | Sb2 | Sb3 |
|
This is Archive 3 of User_talk:Markles. It was archived on 2008-01-27, and contains discussions up through 2007-12-31. [edit] United States attorneys, pastI've for a while admired your list/table efforts on congressional members.
[edit] Salem witch TrialsI have been talking to a couple other wikipedians and we would like to create a Salem witch Trials task force, if that is okay with you and the other members of the Massachusetts Wikiproject. Psdubow 20:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
OK! Great! Another user and I created the page around a week or two ago, we still need to expand it some more though. If possible, can you join our task force and help us, and encourage other members of your Project to join as well? Check it out: Wikipedia:WikiProject Massachusetts/Salem Witch Trials Task Force Thank you very much for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Psdubow 23:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC) [edit] The race for the 5thI was just wondering if I could get your opinion on something on the Talk:Massachusetts's 5th congressional district special election, 2007 page it seems the new independents father is editing the page in favor of his son or atleast trying. Gang14 18:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC) [edit] More presidential vetoes - S. 214 (2007)I don't think this was your change, but I've removed the veto listing for S. 214 (2007). I agree with your comment-question about whether a recess is equivalent to an adjournment for a pocket veto (in fact, Congress gets pissed off enough when President's try to pocket veto between sessions of Congress, which it claims the President can't do). But more to the point, in THOMAS, just because it says "Cleared for White House" doesn't mean that the President has seen it yet; that doesn't happen until the status says "Presented to President" (see H.R. 1591, G.W. Bush's last veto). So until we know that Bush has seen the bill and it has been ten days without the bill signed and with Congress recessed, then we can try to figure out what happens next. In the meantime, I'd suggest that S. 214 be held out of the list. –Pakman044 03:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC) [edit] See alsosIt doesn't matter at all to me which way the seealsos are handled, but there are a whole lot of ordinal congresses that have them like this::See also: U.S. Senators. Free free to change them all if you want to.--Appraiser 23:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Delegates to the United States House of Representatives from Colorado TerritoryGreetings. I saw you added Category:Members of the United States House of Representatives from Colorado to the Category:Delegates to the United States House of Representatives from Colorado Territory description page. I'm not sure that's a good idea. After all, although the territory of Colorado had the same boundaries as the state, that isn't true for many other territories. (And we can't really do that for Dakota, since it was split.) It seems to me that State Reps should be separate from pre-state delegates -- but you seem to know more about the political history of the U.S. House than I do. What do you think? – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Oregon representatives tablesHey there, you had a comment about the columns in your revision note. I believe you originally copied the format here from the Massachusetts page, but once all the data was in, I found the varied column width to be very distracting and hard to read as you move down the page, especially since there are far fewer Oregon reps than Massachusetts (see here). I think the fixed column widths look neater. I don't think many states have pages like this yet, so perhaps we should keep the two styles until a consensus style can be agreed to. --Sprkee 22:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Former Reps List SizeI'm going to de-wikilink a few more parties. I'm developing a template for historical political parties of the United States (I think the Political Parties of the United States template just looks horrendous, and ill-suited to the article) with my goal being to de-wikilink nearly all of the parties when the template is ready. — Valadius 01:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Title 6Hey Markles, I understand what the asterisk does, but why do you feel Title 6 should go first in sort order? Groupthink 04:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Join WikiProject NIHI noticed you've contributed to the National Institutes of Health pages; I've started WikiProject NIH, and thought you might be interested. Check it out if you are! Cmw4117 22:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC) [edit] Taskforce
Psdubow 15:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC) [edit] User talk:Markles/Archive 2Just wanted to let you know that I was updating a double redirect CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 17:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC) [edit] NH Rep DistrictsMarkles: I'm in the process of tabling each of the NH US Rep Disticts. I Noticed that NH had an at-large district in the early years (similar to RI). The current congressional table could use some updating. I'll try to get to it when I get a chance, but I thought you may want to know. Also, NH rep districts only go up to 4,including the obsolete ones. The redlinked 5 and 6th district should be removed. I'd do it but I'm not sure how. Eventually, both CT and VT also need updating with their at-large districts added(CT only has 4 districts as well)Pmeleski 23:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2007Which part isn't current? Best, MoodyGroove 03:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
[edit] List of United States Government apologiesA {{prod}} template has been added to the article List of United States Government apologies, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the [edit] US election templates
[edit] WikiProject Congress subcategoriesHey, I just noticed the new subcategories you created for WikiProject Congress articles. They look great. I was kicking around your suggestion to do so, and your way is cleaner. My original thought was to have a subcategory for districts, one for senators, one for representatives, one for committees, one for ordinal congresses and so on. Take a look at my user page for a test I was working on. Do you think more detail like that would be appropriate, or would that get too complex and general subcategories is the way to go. If anything, we might want to have a senators and representatives subcategory, and leave persons for congressional officers and other non-elected employees. If you have no objections, I may create those two additional subcategories. Also, I'm thinking some items could be categories more than one way with such a system. For example, I would consider the United States Botanic Garden both a place and a thing. Do we want a buildings category to differentiate between a thing like the House of Representatives and a place like the Hart Senate Office Building? Or is that still too much detail?Dcmacnut 03:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC) [edit] Deleting duplicate repsI'm not sure if you are an admin, but I've duplicated a couple of reps, sorry. Can either you delete or recommend someone to delete the following: John Parrott (New Hampshire), George Sullivan (New Hampshire) and Jonathan Freeman (New Hampshire). I've removed the links I placed. Pmeleski 17:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Amendments and legislation
[edit] Securities Legislation a subset of Financial Legislation?Hi Markles- If I understand correctly, you think that all federal financial legislation is also securities legislation? Am I missing something? --Conant Webb 01:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Defunct Committees
[edit] Template:Project CongressPlease see Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Using the bot. I'm trying to make assessment work ... -- Prove It (talk) [edit] US Senate Party affiliations from State Congressional DelegationsMarkles: Here is one for you. I was looking at the Senatorial Rosters from most of the state US senate delegations,and it seems only the first party a particular senator was elected to is indicated. (i.e, X Senator was colored and sent to Federalist designation,even if the sen changed to anther party later(ie Democrat-Republican. It seems to ccur only in the early parties. I'm not sure how big a deal it is for now, but I thought I'd share the info. I tried fixing but I can't get the columns to line up right,particularly if a Senator was replaced mid term. Pmeleski 23:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC) [edit] Template to generate Congressional Committee WikilinksI've been working on a new template to simplify generation of Wikilinks for congressional committees. Typing exceptionally long committee names out long-hand can be tiring, something I've noticed working on the Senate defunct committee list. A shortened template could also help reduce file size of the longer committee list articles (I think). Check out my first attempt at User:Dcmacnut/DCTemplates with examples of how I envision it to work. It's only a rough attempt, and I'm running into a roadblock trying to figure out how to add conditional code to make it simpler (my earlier attempts, as you can see from the history, didn't work out so well). Right now it only outputs the text to the right of the "|", and only applies to full committees. Ultimately, I'd like to have it work for subcommittees as well, and also vary the output depending on the users needs. Any help to push me in the right direction or example of code that might due this from an existing template would be helpful.Dcmacnut 04:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions. I did play around with a switch function, and came up with two solutions. The first is at User:Dcmacnut/DCTemplates and is what I'm calling the "list" option. It generates a piped wikilink with just the committee's short name for use in lists like List of defunct United States Congressional committees or List of United States Senate committees
The second option is at User:Dcmacnut/DCTemplates3, and I'm calling it the "article" option. It generates the full official name of the committee, abreviated U.S. for United States, for use in the main body of an article.
Both versions have a 5th optional field where an editor can override the default by entering in their own piped text. This is helpful for committees with really long names where you may want to use a nickname, or if the short name just isn't short "enough." An example would be the House Katrina Committee. Hurricane Katrina (Select) Instead of U.S. House Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina. I am thinking that both display options have merit, and rather than making it more complex by combining both into a single template, we'd create two templates Template:USCongCom-s for shorthand and Template:USCongCom-l for long names. People could still type out links long-hand, but who'd want to. I admit this is mainly for my own sanity (and ergonomics) in updating the defunct list. Thoughts?Dcmacnut 19:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Barbara Mikulski editsI noticed with this edit you made, that it seems as if you were editing an older version of the page, since you reverted a lot of recent changes. I reverted your edits, since I wasn't sure what was intentional or not. --Tom (talk - email) 20:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] At-large designation
[edit] Template:Cat classI saw on that template that you did the last edit, that is why I am contacting you. I am curious as to why some of the other "classes" such as Category or even List is not on that bar? I know it wouldn't be prudent to include ALL of the classes, but those two and maybe Image would be good classes to include. Is that something that could be added? Thanks for any insight you have on this.--Kranar drogin 05:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Template:CongBioThis template is transcluded over 9,000 times on some very high-profile pages. It's also one of the most linked-to templates. Vandalism on this template would be very widespread and would cause the re-caching of 9,000 pages, twice. The relevant guideline is available here. While I know that protection is annoying, other high-use templates are treated the same way, e.g., Template:Infobox Officeholder. If this template were for talk pages and not for actual articles, I'd be more inclined to leave it unprotected, but with the possibility of articles like Abraham Lincoln being vandalized, I think it should be under full protection. You're more than welcome to list it on WP:RFPP, I won't take offense, but I would disagree with it being unprotected. {{editprotected}} was designed for this very purpose and I spend a good deal of time ensuring that editprotected requests are handled in a timely manner. Cheers. --MZMcBride 21:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Markles' RfAAre you planning on adding your RfA to the main RfA page? Just thought I'd ask. Mahalo. --Ali'i 18:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC) [edit] succession boxesHi, I stumbled into some Members_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives_from_West_Virginia articles and was working on them. I was just wondering how to add the succession boxes. Then I stumbled into your rfa and the link to applying the succession boxes. SO 
[edit] CT At-Large DistrictGood luck with your admin application! I supported your nom (for what it's worth-my nom,not your adminship) I think you'll do fine if you are successful........Got another issue. This time it's CT At-Large. If all the reps are elected at large (the early ones anyway), why is it that Benjamin Tallmadge goes from seat 1 to seat 5 if he's serving consecutive terms on the United States Congressional Delegations from Connecticut Delegation roster? I was going to transfer the info to the At-Large article but I thought I'd get clarification firstPmeleski 21:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] AdministratorCongratulations, you are now an administrator! If you haven't already, now is the time to visit the Wikipedia:New admin school and look through the Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide and Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me, or at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Warofdreams talk 02:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC) [edit] Adams-Clay RepublicansAs I go though this effort to add historical US rep rosters to various Rep districts, one thing I haven't worked out in my mind (and in the spirit of trying to be accurate) is if Adams-Clay Republicans should be grouped with Democratic-Republicans or National Republicans........Most of the rosters here show Adams-Clay as National Republicans, but outside sources show the election of 1824 shows the Democratic-Republican group (of which Adams-Clay was around then)as the only viable party at this time. I was reading the threads on Democratic/Republican vs. Republican vs. Jeffersonian Republican and certainly don't want to start an edit war. But if I go forward with creating the rosters, I don't want to create additional work by grouping this in the wrong body and having myself or someone else change them later. I suppose I could leave it alone for now, but someone else may come along and do it anyway without concensus. Any thoughts?........ And do you know who has access to the political party key?????? I wanted to discuss some stuff there too......Pmeleski 23:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Responding to Pmeleski's comments on my talk page. My thoughts on the whole Adams/Jackson conundrum is generally based on two things -- how the parties were listed by the House of Representatives and party philosophy. Adams, National Republicans, and Anti-Jacksonians are all basically the same party. Adams split off from Democratic-Republican the same time as the Jacksonians did, effective with the 19th Congress (1825-1827). This marks the dissolution of the old D-Rs. the 18th Congress is the only Congress where the pro-Adams and pro-Jackson factions are still listed as part of the official D-R umbrella. All sub-factions (Adams, Jackson, Crawford, Clay, etc.) should be colored as D-R for that congress, but labele with their appropriate title. I guess I would have no problem with Adams having their own party color, since the Jacksonians have their own, but I think it's better to assign all three the same color, and just make the appropriate notation in the text. All three (Adams, National Republicans, and Anti-Jacksonians) had one common purpose: opposition to Andrew Jackson. Party organization changed, but not the underlying political beliefs. Another point I've made is that National Republicans technically never elected a member to the House, according to the party statistics for the time period. They may have ran as National Republicans in their respective states, but according to the House historical record, they are Adams or Anti-Jacksonian. In this regard, the Wikipedia articles for the 19th through 24th Congresses that list Democrats and NRs are wrong, and I'm working on fixing them. Anti-Jacksonians first appeared in 1829 with the 21st Congress, and ultimately became the Whigs starting in 1837 (25th Congress), which is when the Democrats also first appeared.Dcmacnut 03:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC) [edit] Silver Republican colorMarkles, I'm interested in your last comment on Silver Republicans. You indicate they should be colored with the general Republican color, but identified as "Silver Republicans." I always thought SRs should be colored using Free Silver. They were more than just a faction within the Republican Party, and actually split off and rand their own candidates and were aligned with Populists and independent Democrats. Using a different color would highlight the split in philospy. Several articles, particularly United States Congressional Delegations from Colorado use this method. There is a separate shading key for Silver Republican that is a shade of brown. I'm thinking that template should be redirected to Free Silver. Otherwise, the color would only be used for those Silvers elected from Nevada.Dcmacnut 14:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Editing TipsThanks for the info on linking dates, I'll keep an eye on doing it the right way. Regarding color shading, it appears each state does it differently, and there is no standard. Colorado is one example, Pennsylvania another. I like shading the entire row because it highlights the party better, but I could be convinced to do something else.......Another question I had was regarding the Vermont At-Large/1st Cong district seat. Should the Vermont 1st and At-Large districts be seperated rather than having the 1st redirect to the At-Large??????? They would be technically different.....If you look at MA, there is an At-Large district and a 1st distict. Thought about that after I created the article. What do you think????......Pmeleski 19:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Deleted my map...I noticed that you deleted the map Image:2004CampaignAttention.png I added to the United States presidential election, 2004 article. I don't know, but I thought it was pretty informative and relevant to the topic... Szu 07:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! Szu 09:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC) [edit] Templates reminderThis is just a note to inform you that when you move an article, as you've been doing en masse of late, you should modify the corresponding template as well by linking to the new title, else the template won't work properly (ie, it won't turn black when viewing that page). Biruitorul 01:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Need 3rd party opinion on {{Infobox Govt Agency}}Hi Markles. Seeing that you do lots of work on government articles, and that you're an admin, I was hoping you could look at my talk page at a problem someone has had with my edits to {{Infobox Govt Agency}}. I'm being accused of "polluting" and vandalizing the template by adding additional features that in no way hurt existing instances of the template. It looks to me like a clear case of WP:OWN, as the guy who created it is blocking my good faith edits. By reverting my edits, he actually has broken lots of pages that use the new features. Anyways, I'd just appreciate it if you could look into it for me as a 3rd party. You should also read the talk page Template_talk:Infobox_Govt_Agency#Recent_changes, as it's quite interesting. Thanks, --CapitalR 20:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] TabsHey don't mention it :) I think I copied the idea off somewhere else back in the day, although I made a few modifications for size and colour. Orderinchaos 15:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Winthrop, Massachusetts
Winthrop operates under a city form of government but calls itself a town. Massachusetts town government has a town meeting and Board of Selectman. Town elections are in the spring, and are held annually. "Towns" that operate under a "town council," without selectmen and town meeting, are operating under a city plan of government. Cities also hold elections on the traditional election day in odd numbered years. This describes the government in Winthrop. The 2005 vote to restructure the government in Winthrop abolished Town Meeting, the Board of Selectmen, and the annual spring election. See http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/gl-39-toc.htm for the legal rules for towns and cities. See http://www.town.winthrop.ma.us/Pages/WinthropMA_Bcomm/councilors for the councilors in Winthrop, and http://www.town.winthrop.ma.us/Pages/WinthropMA_BBoard/010FD0E9-000F8513 for the election cycle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schlichtman (talk • contribs) 03:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC) [edit] Speedy deletionHi Markles, I have speedy deleted Category:United States presidential election templates, 2008, which you had nominated at CfD. I just thought that it might help to point you towards Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. As the creator of a now-empty category, you could have asked for a speedy deletion by using {{db-author}}. Less work for you than a CfD nomination, and less work for admins. Hope this helps! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Barney FrankI was wondering if I could get you to look into this page because one user keeps trying to change the page to what he thinks is right and the rest of us feel the original version is the best Gang14 05:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Semi-protection should not be used: . . . * In a content dispute between registered users and anonymous users, with the intention to lock out the anonymous users. However, if more action is necessary, please let me know. —Markles 10:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC) [edit] FL Main page proposalYou either nominated a WP:FLC or closed such a nomination recently. As such, you are the type of editor whose opinion I am soliciting. We now have over 400 featured lists and seem to be promoting in excess of 30 per month of late (41 in August and 42 in September). When Today's featured article (TFA) started (2004-02-22), they only had about 200 featured articles and were barely promoting 20 new ones per month. I think the quality of featured lists is at least as good as the quality of featured articles was when they started appearing on the main page. Thus, I am ready to open debate on a proposal to institute a List of the Day on the main page with nominations starting November 1, 2007, voting starting December 1, 2007 and main page appearances starting January 1, 2008. For brevity, the proposal page does not discuss the details of eventual main page content, but since the work has already been done, you should consider this proposal assuming the eventual content will resemble the current content at the featured content page. Such output would probably start at the bottom of the main page. The proposal page does not debate whether starting with weekly list main page entries would be better than daily entries. However, I suspect persons in favor of weekly lists are really voicing opinions against lists on the main page since neither TFA nor Picture of the day started as weekly endeavors, to the best of my knowledge. See the List of the Day proposal and comment at WP:LOTDP and its talk page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC) [edit] CongressesHi, Markles -- I had tried to bring 10th Congress in line with (at least some of) the other Congress pages. I don't have any strong preference, but it seems odd to have 9th Congress one way and 10th Congress another. But the dab page is cleaned up, which was my primary goal. -- JHunterJ 23:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] a helpful hint on talk page movesOn October 9th, you moved the template and talk page for
I think it's a fine move. I just now picked up the talk archive page and moved it. If I had done the original move, I probably would have missed the archive too. The special page, "articles with prefix" was my own check for any other pages left behind. A dandy tool Special:Prefixindex. [edit] History of 19th Century congressional redistricting in OhioI left questions at Talk:History of 19th Century congressional redistricting in Ohio. Can you address these? Bearian'sBooties 02:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC) [edit] New York PoliticiansThanks for the clarification.......Ithought it a bit duplicitous also, but I when I began adding the additional NY reps, I noticed (the ones I looked at anyway) had both, so I copied both. I'll leave Politicians off and remove any I see that I edit...........Pmeleski 11:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Redirect of Maryland United States Senate election, 2010 To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Maryland United States Senate election, 2010, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 08:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC) [edit] "Agriculture legislation" category on proposed legislationWhy don't you think that Category:United States federal agriculture legislation belongs on proposed legislation? The 2007 Farm Bill certainly is agriculture legislation, whether or not it is enacted yet. It wouldn't belong in a "federal agricultural law" section, because it hasn't passed from legislation into law, but it is still "legislation". johnpseudo 18:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] LOTD proposalYou have nominated a recently successful WP:FL. There have been two recent proposals to begin a List of the Day feature on the main page, which have both received majorities but have not been approved as overwhelming support sufficient to change the main page. WP:LOTDP is a new proposal to try to get the ball rolling based on the original proposal. You can voice your thoughts on its talk page. Basically, what the proposal entails is attempting to run an official trial, and then vote after the trial run on whether to change the main page. Support to run a trial requires much less consensus than support to change the main page. Should we succeed at eventually getting such a feature on the main page it would tentatively look like this. Whether or not you support an experimental trial or not you should come discuss the matter at WP:LOTDP's talk page. I apologize if you have either already voiced your opinion on this matter or already tired of hearing about it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC) There have been a series of proposals to initiate a Featured List of the Day on the main page. Numerous proposals have been put forth. After the third one failed, I audited all WP:FL's in order to begin an experiment in my own user space that will hopefully get it going. Today, it commences at WP:LOTD. Afterwards I created my experimental page, a new proposal was set forth to do a featured list that is strikingly similar to my own which is to do a user page experimental featured list, but no format has been confirmed and mechanism set in place. I continue to be willing to do the experiment myself and with this posting it commences. Please submit any list that you would like to have considered for list of the day in the month of January 2008 by the end of this month to WP:LOTD and its subpages. You may submit multiple lists for consideration.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 17:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC) [edit] CongbioOK, I figured it out. the first PAGENAME needed braces around it. I've reverted, with braces added. Cool Hand Luke 17:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC) [edit] ConglinksJust a thought to help you with Conglinks.......maybe a bot can speed things up instead of doing the manual thing?????????? Pmeleski (talk) 23:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for CongLinks. :-) I had added most of those links separately earlier, but your template should ensure all of them are always included (where possible). Since neither a bot nor a bot-writer appears to be forthcoming, i've converted the remaining current U.S. Senators manually. If I might make a suggestion...the Officeholder infobox doesn't require the deletion of 'empty' options, and it would be helpful if your template didn't either. First, it's counter-intuitive. Second (and more important), appointed officeholders generally don't have FEC and opensecrets links until the next election. Empty options serve as a reminder to add this information when available. While we're on the topic, I ran into some Senators who had additional FEC and opensecrets pages for other offices. I added these separately, but in the interests of clarity it would be helpful if your template labeled them as 'House' or 'Senate' or 'Presidential' when you format the description line. I'm thinking Wikipedians could enter 'current office' as a separate option for you to reference.Flatterworld (talk) 18:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:United States presidential candidatesI began to populate Category:United States presidential candidates, but noticed a similar category Category:United States presidential election, 2008.....Worthwhile keeping both?????? Pmeleski (talk) 23:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
One pretty good reason for
is the difference between a biographical article, and an article about an event having a relation to the process, like a primary, convention, debate, and so on.
[edit] John McCainWho says that McCain's fundraising totals are 'poor'. I don't know why you keep changing that back. It's just an opinion and I'm trying to make it more factual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlma ad (talk • contribs) 01:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC) [edit] Instead of proposing deletion of navigational templatesWhy not instead propose rules for their use? Wouldn't that be more cnstructive?--Dr who1975 (talk) 15:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] List of current United States Representatives by seniority[edit] I think the order is incorrectCan you provide any insight into the discussion I started?--Dr who1975 21:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Leading Zerosgood idea... I was considering doing it too. I'll see if I can finish it off.--Dr who1975 (talk) 22:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Ohio's 5th congressional districtThanks for your note. Party spending has continued to escalate, so I edited the sentence again to reflect the close nature of the race, and included a cite for one of the major media buys made by the NRCC as reported to the FEC. It was the best I could find, but then again, it'll only be up there for a few more days - Tuesday is election day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Politics608 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] SectionsHey, not being real familiar with statutes, and how the go in Wikipedia, I'm curious why it is that the pertinent section numbers of the Anarchist Exclusion Acts was too much info. Cheers! Murderbike (talk) 00:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] DYK
[edit] United States Congressional Delegations from OhioHello, I saw that you were working on United States Congressional Delegations from Ohio at the same time that I was. I went ahead and split off two more sections in the table (some detail of what I did can be seen in the history of User:Ardric47/T1), but we can change it back if that's not what you had in mind. Ardric47 (talk) 08:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] AfD nomination of Parental Consent Act |
