User talk:Kurykh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Disambiguation link notification for July 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

California's 36th State Assembly district (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Rosamond
California's 4th State Senate district (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Live Oak, California

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

California's 53rd State Assembly district (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to East Los Angeles
California's 71st State Assembly district (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Spring Valley, California

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of members of the National Assembly (South Korea), 2012–, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Goseong (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited David Chiu (politician), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Attorney (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

PPACA Image Changes

Hey. First, I'd like to say that I like the new Senate vote image (striped instead of purple). However, for the other,= 2, I wondered what you'd think of the idea that having the Medicaid and Exchange images use partisan coloring is a worthwhile thing because it imparts more information: it reflects the near-perfect divide in government control i.e. almost uniformly, Republican-controlled state governments rejected both and vice versa. I'm not so attached that I have changed them but thought it worse raising the idea that such coloring is usefully accurate? Sb101 (talk|contribs) 06:58, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that information is useful only to those immersed in American politics, not to the average reader. With the impending opening of the exchanges, I would imagine people are reading the article to learn more about the bill and what it does, not so much about the partisan tussle surrounding it. The article is extremely long and the issue is confusing enough as it is; it would be prudent to make the maps as simple as possible.
From a logistical standpoint, using partisan coloring can also confuse people; people will be left wondering why Idaho is blue in the insurance exchange map despite full Republican control, and there's nothing in the article that explains that. Ditto with Arizona, Michigan, North Dakota, and Pennsylvania in the Medicaid map. Nevada and New Jersey took opposite approaches on exchanges despite both having Republican governors and Democratic legislatures, while Missouri and Arkansas took opposite approaches on Medicaid despite having Democratic governors and Republican legislatures. Partisan control also changes over time, rendering this sort of color-coding confusing and ultimately ineffective at conveying the type of information you mentioned. It's best to divorce the maps from such a problematic usage and just stick to the core information. --Kurykh (talk) 08:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

PPACA

Hey, look, sorry. The reason I've reverted is not that I disagree with all your changes per se - I did retain some and could be convinced for more, but since the majority I'm having a problem given how soon I just went through it with LT90001, I thought it'd be easier to revert and then restore select edits so the remaining contentious ones can be hashed out. Sb101 (talk|contribs) 10:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Regarding notations, I was using them because, I thought, it made the article shorter to read (even though, true, the wikitext was longer, but that's not the relevant factor that the criteria I'm aware of judge by - it's the readable prose that matters). For example, I think 'John Chafee of Rhode Island' is longer to read than John Chafee (R-RI)? Sb101 (talk|contribs) 10:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

But is there a need to say "Republican senators Mike Enzi (R-WY), Chuck Grassley (R-IA)," etc.? First, it merely repeats that they're Republicans and second, what state they're from is immaterial. Frankly, I would also take out the "Rhode Island" part and just leave it at "John Chafee." Again, as I mentioned about the maps: stick to the necessary information. --Kurykh (talk) 19:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I think two changes that I hope can be resolved relatively easily are the aforementioned notation vs alternative structure + the notability of Snowe's retirement. As I said on the former, putting aside the idea of notifying membership period, I wasn't convinced that non-notation form was shorter? [But one thing I do think should be retained, in some way shape or form, is the sentence 'An individual mandate coupled with subsidies for private insurance as a means for universal healthcare was considered the best way to win the support of the Senate because it had been included in prior bipartisan reform proposals.' Just saying it was included in past reforms doesn't link that to motivation for the adoption of reform of this kind?] Sb101 (talk|contribs) 11:12, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, tangentially, if you reply shortly, I may not get back to you immediately. I'm just baking cookies and I need to rush back to keep my eye on them. If only we were in person, I'd offer you some to show you I'm not trying to be antagonistic or WP:OWN =) Sb101 (talk|contribs) 11:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

1) Notation: See above.
2) Snowe's retirement was a multitude of factors beyond ACA; including it here is more of an unneeded aside.
3) The individual mandate sentence was uncited and seemed more like opinion and WP:OR. It was therefore liable to instantaneous removal.
4) It was 3 in the morning at my end and therefore slightly irritable. Sorry about that. --Kurykh (talk) 19:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
1) Yes check.svg Fixed I replied on the talk page. (I think it helped to hear your reasoning and for my brain to process stuff - it was pretty late here too =) )
2) Yes check.svg Fixed Yea... I've always thought it was quite connected; but at the same time, having my attention drawn to it did make me reconsider the necessity of inclusion, even if true.
3) I would certainly defend it; I thought it was too uncontroversially true to need to source. As it is, on hand, I can think of: these two sources. Off the top of my head, another source that has the contrast of the lack of votes for single-payer proposals from Barney Frank. It's certainly clear, I would say, from examples like that justify the inclusion of that sentence.
4) You deserve a:
Choco chip cookie.png
=) Sb101 (talk|contribs) 11:52, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

List of hotels in Singapore

I have been reviewing articles from Special:NewPagesFeed and see that List of hotels in Singapore was previously deleted by you. Does the article still meet the criteria by which it was deleted - or is it good to go?

Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Chris Seeman

Hi Kurykh,

I have a good source for Chris Seeman, which you deleted after closing the AFD. Do you have any objections to userfication so that I can do some work on it? BOZ (talk) 05:19, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

If I can work on this one, I can immediately add a similar amount of content as I did here and here. BOZ (talk) 18:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Different District for S2 in California?

Hello - You recently reverted an edit of mine. I had removed what I saw as a duplicate infobox. Are you sure about your position on this? It seems to that there is, at any one time, only one Senate-2 district. The characteristics of it change, but I suggest it is the same district. See Ship of Theseus. Let me know if you agree so that I can re-do the edits. thanx. RayKiddy (talk) 19:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we have to wax existential on this issue. The basic problem is that the old pre-2011 district is still in use, while all current demographic and voter registration data is based on the new post-2011 district. In a way, we need to have some method of presenting both districts at the same time, especially since the new district will be used in an election that is coming up in less than three months. There is also the issue of being consistent with other state senate articles, especially those that will change dramatically. Having two infoboxes was the best (though by no means perfect) solution I could think of in this situation. --Kurykh (talk) 06:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Medicaid expansion map update

New Hampshire needs to be updated on this map that you made. I would do it myself, but I don't know how. Some of the "still debating states" probably should be changed too, as the debate seems to be over for now in most of them.[1] Rreagan007 (talk) 20:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

have you tried using inkscape to edit avgs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.118.207 (talk) 01:28, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at AN/I that involves you. What it is about...I have no clue.--Maleko Mela (talk) 05:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Undelete ActiveQuant software

nevermind they are going closed source. Mrdthree (talk) 11:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Chris Seeman

Hi there, Kurykh. You closed the AFD on Chris Seeman, and last year I put the article into draft space at Draft:Chris Seeman and did some work on it. Would you approve moving it back into article space, or would it be better for me to try WP:DRV instead? BOZ (talk) 12:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Blue Dog Democrats in the 113th Congress

Hi Kurykh, and thank you for your upload of map illustrating current Blue Dog Coalition-representatives! The map seems to be outdated though and I was wondering if you could update it?Certain districts represented by Blue Dogs are lacking, such as Illinois's 3rd congressional district (represented by Congressman Dan Lipinski) and Illinois's 17th congressional district (represented by Congresswoman Cheri Bustos). Please see the list of Blue Dogs in the 113th Congress. Niceley (talk) 07:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Cosmic evolution

Hi noticed you closed the AfD discussion in 2011 regarding this article here turning it into a redirect page to Physical cosmology. My sense is this a fairly apt redirect, but somewhat inaccurate, since the term (in my view) has three different senses, with Physical cosmology -- meaning its history -- being the predominant sense, that is, the term generally means 'physical history of the cosmos (including all galaxies) from the Big Bang to the present', in popular and academic parlance, so the redirect is usually right, except there are two slightly different meanings. I have contributed to related subjects, notably Big History and Cosmic Evolution (book), and I have done some googling of the term 'Cosmic evolution' in the popular science press such as here and I am wondering whether the redirect page could be turned into a disambiguation page with three lines, specifically:--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Cosmic evolution may refer to....

My sense is this would be more accurate, but I bet most people use it in the first sense, meaning the history of physical cosmology, but increasingly there are those who see it as a term equivalent to Big History, and there are perhaps a small percentage of readers interested in the Chaisson book. This is speculation I realize but my sense it would be more accurate. I am seeking your view on this matter.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited California State Legislature, 2015–16 session, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Gallagher. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox California State Legislature

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Infobox California State Legislature has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:31, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

===Question about the un-deletion of Orange Technology

Dear Kurykh, Thank you very much for reading this msg.

I was writing journal paper several days before. I didn't know the article is deleted and some new messages are left in the discussion until today. I would like to make some comments to the discussion. I am wondering if it is convenient for you to un-delete the page Orange Technology. At least, allow my voice can be heard by other people.

If more information is required, please feel free to inform me.

Thanks— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcic2011 (talkcontribs)

I cannot allow you to respond without allowing others to reply to you, which would mean the discussion will never end. Since the AfD has been open for over two weeks and the consensus to delete is clear, I will not reopen the discussion. --Kurykh (talk) 22:39, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Districts After the U.S. Census of 2010

Hi Kurykh,

Do you think that on Richard Pan since the Assembly districts are different from redistricting that we should remove Darrell Steinberg as the predecessor, since the 6th Senate District that Steinberg was elected to was different than the one that Pan was elected to?

Sincerely,

Toyz1988 (talk) 22:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Toyz1988, I will quote from Template:Infobox Officeholder:

Where a politician was redistricted into a new district, you can use |prior_term= to indicate which district(s) he was in before. This saves space in the infobox by not generating a completely new office each time redistricting happens. If you do this, it is recommended that you list the person preceded when the subject first took office and the person succeeded when the subject last left office. Where the use of "same district number" is used for determining "predecessor" and "successor" in any office, but where the area is so altered as to make such a "predecessor" or "successor" of little or no biographical value, the word "redistricted" should be used rather than using names of officeholders whose connection is accidental by virtue of district number, but unrelated to any election contests between officeholders.

Steinberg's district, while altered somewhat, is substantially the same as before. Pan's old district, on the other hand, was shredded into three parts, leading him to move across town and establish a new residence in a completely new district with no obvious predecessor. The former 5th district and current 9th district don't even overlap at all. For another example, see Roger Dickinson. His 7th district had a clear predecessor, the old 9th, so that's why the article infobox shows it combined. --Kurykh (talk) 22:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I like it the other way, but personal preference is no reason to change established procedures. I have seen it the other way on many House of Representative members and other elected officials. The Roger Dickinson infobox is not helpful to me it does not present the information clearly in my opinion. I would make the two offices (7th & 9th) separate parts. Again that is my opinion and if there are established procedures in place then, by all means, use those. I will just be in the minority. Thanks for taking the time.

Sincerely,

Toyz1988 (talk) 23:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox California State Legislature

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Infobox California State Legislature has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Alakzi (talk) 23:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, thanks for your work on the California State Legislature articles. Alakzi (talk) 23:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC)