Jump to content

User talk:Samesexmarriage101

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 2011

[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on User talk:EncMstr. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. tedder (talk) 18:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I don't know how I was "Attacking someone". It was a simple question. Samesexmarriage101 (talk) 18:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

[edit]
Hello, Samesexmarriage101! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

Thanks for adding poll data

[edit]

Thanks for adding WA. current poll data. It helps tracking the trends and the odds of nullifying referendums passing. I'm fascinated by the 63/32 margin of young voters. God keeps on "retiring" the oldest voters and replacing them with an even younger, even more pro, cohort of voters over time.
--Javaweb (talk) 20:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)Javaweb[reply]

I always look at the cross tabs, but I found that very interesting the margin is HUGE. I couldn't believe it.

Minn.

[edit]

Very constructive and mature. If you change your mind and decide to be constructive rather than disruptive, there is a discussion at the article talk page. -Rrius (talk) 05:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are the only one in the 2 years who has giving me beef about this. I haven't hear or had any other people talk to me about this before. Because its not a big deal thats the truth. It doesn't matter where it starts as long as it passes both chambers. And when it does it gets signed. Thats all. Its simple. I also posted on the page. I thank you for opening it up for discussion and we will see what happens going forward. The phase applies here if its not broken don't fix it. Samesexmarriage101 (talk) 06:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You don't rearrange a list at Wikipedia based on assumptions about future actions. At the moment, there is a bill in Minnesota and a bill in Illinois. As I have said, the Illinois bill could be passed quickly on Tuesday (no vote is scheduled for Tuesday as the calendar for Tuesday's session hasn't been printed, and a supplemental calendar can be printed on the day in any event). Also, the Minnesota timetable could slip for any number of reasons. As such, they should be treated equally. Only once one of them ceases to be a bill and becomes an act should it be treated differently. This is pretty basic stuff. Not only is doing otherwise a violation of WP:CRYSTAL, it just doesn't make sense. Readers should have the current information presented to them based on the current situation, not some hidden assumption about the future. -Rrius (talk) 05:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota will be the 12 state. Period. Samesexmarriage101 (talk) 05:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is a likelihood, not a certainty. If you can't tell the difference, you shouldn't be editing. WP:CRYSTAL precludes that sort of "Gee, but we all know" prediction. There is no reason to preempt events; just have some patience. The edit will be just as fulfilling when Dayton puts pen to paper. -Rrius (talk) 05:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Under Rule 19 of the 98th House Rules of state of Illinois. Daily Calendar, provided the bill or resolution shall be carried on the Daily Calendar for at least one legislative day prior to consideration by the House.

Therefore, a vote couldn't be scheduled for Tuesday, because they are not there on Monday. Therefore, it had to be placed on the calendar today for Tuesday. They have already adjourned for the day. So it will not becoming up on Tuesday on the calendar. Samesexmarriage101 (talk) 05:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except that there is such a thing as a supplemental calendar. And even if you were correct, it wouldn't matter. As I have stated, the Minnesota timetable could slip. More importantly, readers should have the information presented in a straightforward manner, not based on some hidden "knowledge" that you think you have. The two list items are equal in that they are both bills. Once one of them is an act, moving it up to where "settled" items go makes sense. Until then, it is a mistake. Just because you have been doing it a given way doesn't make that way correct. Wait for events. Why is that so hard for you? -Rrius (talk) 05:30, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Also, SB 10 has been "carried on the Daily Calendar" since it was reported from committee in March. The Daily Calendar is just a list of bills before the full House. There is nothing procedurally preventing a vote on Tuesday. -Rrius (talk) 05:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you really got it wrong. Rule 19 is about bills that were re-referred to the Rules Committee because the deadline for action passed. Bills passed out of a committee in the normal way during the course of a session (in other words, before passage of the deadline) are not subject to that restriction. If they are to be dealt with that day, they are printed up on a Supplemental Calendar. But, again, the bill has been on the Daily Calendar for some time now. -Rrius (talk) 05:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh its not hidden "knowledge" its the rules. Its pretty simple to understand. Also, its important to note. In Minnesota the bill will for 3rd and final read. If the 3rd read were to fail (Which it won't) it would still be ahead of Illinois because of Rule 19 in the Illinois house. So I have made the changes. Minnesota will be before Illinois. Samesexmarriage101 (talk) 05:34, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not "the rules". You don't understand what the Daily Calendar is. And the idea that the Minn. bill will likely be voted on on Monday and likely signed on Tuesday is hidden "knowledge" as it is not apparent from the article. It is also just plain silly not to treat like as like. The two are both pending bills and should be treated as such until one is signed by a governor or voted down. -Rrius (talk) 05:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to with Governors signature. Samesexmarriage101 (talk) 05:42, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it does. A bill becomes an act when it is signed by the governor, unless overridden or by the governor's inaction. -Rrius (talk) 05:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) You cannot guarantee anything and shouldn't make the edit even if you could. You are behaving like a child. WP:CRYSTAL means we can't make predictive edits like the one you keep insisting on. Why won't you even address that argument? Why are you so insistent that we act as though something has happened that clearly has not. There are hundreds of reasons why the Senate might fail to vote on Monday despite their stated plan. There are hundreds of reasons why the bill might not become law on Tuesday as planned. There are also reasons why Illinois's bill might become law before Minnesota's. If Pat Quin signs a marriage equality bill before Mark Dayton, manifestly Illinois will be 12th and Minnesota 13th. Are you really so ignorant of the basics of the legislative process that you don't understand that? If so, you really should not spend your time editing a page about legislation. -Rrius (talk) 05:54, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with the governors signature because There is a vote on MONDAY. WHETHER up OR DOWN. Its A VOTE.

Are you truly that stupid? The bill does not become a law if it is passed on Monday. The governor still has to sign it. If it is voted down, then of course the bill moves up because it is no longer a pending bill. But if it passes, it is still a pending bill until the governor signs it. How do you not understand this? -Rrius (talk) 05:54, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Okay.

Efforts to enable same-sex unions

[edit]

Votes by state legislatures to recognize various types of same-sex unions, sorted by date:

State Date Type of same-sex union Upper House Lower house Governor Final
outcome
Yes No Yes No
Minnesota May 2013 Marriage[1]' 36 31 75 59 Pending
Illinois May 2013 Marriage[2][3] 34 21 Pending

Minnesota would be before Illinois because of the Senate vote. Because it PASSED both chambers. I don't what the vote will be, but lets say 36-31 or even 34-35 it would still be before Illinois because the roll call was taken. It would still be before because it made it out of both chambers and its pending for signature. Meaning the vote is scheduled in Minnesota it would still be before Illinois. Also, the house would have passed it in Illinois by now if they had the votes, which they don't as of right now.

Samesexmarriage101 (talk) 06:03, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is a meaningless distinction. The table is a list of legislation, with final action at the top and pending action at the bottom. That a bill has progressed farther is immaterial. What matters is whether there is anything more to happen with it. What's more, at this point no action has been taken to distinguish the bills at all. A reader looking at the table would wonder why in the hell Minnesota, which starts with an M is before Illinois, which starts with an I. The scheduling of a vote is something completely external to the table (a hidden fact) and should not be reflected there by fiddling with the order in which bills are presented. This is not a private tracking tool for legislation. It is a list of legislation on Wikipedia. As such, it's presentation should be basic. Putting one state above another because its next stage has been announced is irrational. Putting a state above another because it has progressed farther, but not yet to completion, is also illogical. It is a list of legislation, not a list of legislation by stage of legislative progress. -Rrius (talk) 06:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that others have been doing this wrong since 2009, because its the way that a majority do it. Also, it is a list of legislation, with final action at the top, and pending action at the bottom. Meaning that the Minnesota bill is farther along and will be farther along meaning it is close to becoming a final action, when Illinois is not becoming a final action, by next week. It is not immaterial, because the vote is clearly scheduled regarding of the outcome it will still be farther along. It is also not a (hidden fact) I will link an article if it makes you feel better. It is not illogical it makes sense. Its the way it has always been for years, not only by me, but others have done it that way previously. Look at the previous actions and see for yourself. So if you read the graph like I posted. When the vote is taken on Monday which it will be it will still be farther along then Illinois because it made it out of the Senate and House and it is pending signature. Samesexmarriage101 (talk) 14:42, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is no farther along as it has not even received a vote in the second chamber, so that is just flat out wrong. When I say "hidden fact", what I mean, and what I have said to you now repeatedly, is that it there is no difference apparent in the list itself. The only difference (the legally meaningless distinction of a scheduling announcement from Senate leadership), is not anywhere in the table, and posting link to an article doesn't change that. It also doesn't change the fact that the only meaningful distinction between types of legislation in the table is whether it is pending, enacted or dead. No such difference exists between Illinois and Minnesota at the moment and still won't assuming it passes on Monday. If others have done it that way before, it doesn't mean it makes sense. And even if I were to accept a change on Monday out of frustration with your bloody-minded refusal to even think about how the table looks to people who read it, I still would not accept what you are trying to do before then. What you are proposing to do is a change to the existing table. To make that change, you need consensus, which you don't have. So stop edit warring and wait until at the bill is actually passed. Until then, Minnesota and Illinois are in the same boat, and readers shouldn't be confronted with a table that attempts to make distinctions between states without bothering to justify, or even explain, what those distinctions are. -Rrius (talk) 00:47, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will continue to make the changes. You are the only person who has a problem with it. Look up the record. Samesexmarriage101 (talk) 01:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are the only person who supports the change. The pre-existing consensus is Illinois, then Minnesota. You need to gain consensus for your change before imposing. How the hell do you not understand how consensus works. Also, it is asinine to say that if someone reads the article you are linking to they will understand the reason you have changed the order. The list needs to make sense on its own terms, not based on an unexplained link. Why the hell would someone see "pending[90]" and understand that to mean anything about why Minnesota is out of order or anything about scheduling. Your argument makes no sense, and you have failed repeatedly to explain why it is so fucking important to preempt events rather than wait to see what actually happens out in the real world. Are you afraid out of some bizarre superstition that the bill won't pass if you don't screw around with the order? Are you just having trouble coming to terms with how the legislative process works, specifically when a bill become a law? Do you not understand that the list is not a "list of legislation by stage reached"? Is it just that you don't give a flying fuck about readers and only care about curating the list for your own personal use? Because I am here to tell you that you don't own the list, and its presentation should not be centered around the people who already know what stage legislation is at. Rather, it does (and should) present information in the manner most rational to a person who does not already know and has come to it to find out. Putting things out of their natural order based on things the editor knows (or thinks he knows) but do not appear on the face of the list is ridiculous. There is a recurring problem on Wikipedia of people making changes to pages before the real world changes actually happen. It seems you have a particular acute case. You won't die if you just take a deep breath and wait until the bill is actually enacted. -Rrius (talk) 05:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


"Are you afraid out of some bizarre superstition that the bill"

I know it has the votes to pass. I know that it has over 34. I say it could get maybe 37. I don't think they would schedule if it couldn't pass. I think a couple more Democrats will oppose it in the Senate. We will see how much it passes by, also the amendment by FitzSimmons could get a couple of votes in the Senate. So it could be key, I mean it certainly helped in the house.

Of course it is, look at all the other bills. I mean they are by the time they were completed. Not by ABC. The vote is Monday, the bill has it. Move the bill up. It scheduled. And when the board fucking lights up. +34 YAY / -33 NAY or whatever the tally. It would still be in before Illinois because it would have passed out of two chambers. I mean theres nothing to negotiate. It is not based of what I know. Its based off facts. I wouldn't consider me apart of your category with recurring people. I mean to be honest I makes me feel like you are saying that you own that page. Because I had a problem with you previously and I disagreed with you and I still do regarding that, but it make it seem like its your way or no way. And thats just ridiculous. Samesexmarriage101 (talk) 07:13, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, you don't know it has the votes to pass. You are confident based on the information available in media reporting and on reasonable inference from the fact the vote is scheduled. That is not the same thing as knowing and falls within the category of speculation barred by WP:CRYSTAL. Second, passing in two chambers is not the end. The governor (and both have said they will sign their respective bills if they receive them) have to physically put their signatures on the bills before the thing is done. So if you were being logical, the bill would move up when the bill was voted down or signed. A yes vote would not move it up on its own. It is really sad that you don't understand the basics of lawmaking, but c'est la vie. Third, you just don't seem to be able to understand the distinction between what you know and what the Wikipedia article says. The edit you kept insisting on did not explain that a vote was scheduled. Your attempt at a fix, adding a bare-link ref, also failed at this because nothing about it said with the Wikipedia article anything about scheduling. I don't feel I own the age; I want it to be presented in a way that is intuitively obvious to a reader, not just regular editors at the page. Readers are who we edit for, not ourselves. And incidentally, since you bring up the last disagreement, that really is just further proof that you don't understand the legislative process. Identical bills in different houses are separate bills, and since it is not at all unusual for a legislative body to pass a bill, then for its fellow chamber to make a choice as to whether to amend that bill or pass its own, your insistence that two separate bills are actually one could have cause confusion by making it seem both houses had passed a bill when in fact they had passed separate ones and nothing was ready for the governor.
In the end, you have simply worn me down. You have no regard for readers and no regard for basic principles of Wikipedia, such as waiting until facts are certain before editing to reflect them. I can't do anything about the latter, but I have explained via a note that the vote is scheduled. Nothing can actually explain the fetishistic need to move the state up based on that, but then again nothing could. In the end, I hope you will take the time to review basic Wikipedia guidelines like WP:CONSENSUS and WP:CRYSTAL, but if you haven't felt the need before now, I doubt you ever will. I also hope you will decide to take a more reader-friendly attitude as you make decisions about how to edit, but again, It's probably not likely. -Rrius (talk) 07:54, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would said more than confident I would be willing to take a bet on it. Also, I do understand how a bill becomes law. I understand it won't become a law until the Governors Signature and the effective date on the bill which it varies of course. So when the Marriage bill passes on Monday. I will or something else likely will place Pending which the spot of signature, until it has been signed. Then so one and so far and whatever. I understand the 3rd point that you have raised and I agree with part of the statement. I never made a note that the vote was scheduled. I just assumed that people would go to that link/article to get the proper information. But that has been resolved. Also I would like to tell you that I understand how a bill becomes law. I really don't like when others tell me when I know something, I mean I find it a bit offensive. I personally believe that everyone should know how a bill becomes law. If you remember the case with Rhode Island the House passed H5015 I believe it was called. The Senate decided not to take up H5015 instead they decided to take up S38 which is fine. So when that passed someone placed 26-15 and removed the House vote. I know it wasn't me. But that person aswell as myself knew that it was a different bill. So when the house passed the bill it was fixed and all was good. I don't care who personally passes what bill or whatever. As long as like you said its a bill that passes both chambers. I could really careless of it is a house file or senate file. As long as its the same bill throughout the process.

On the final paragraph I will refuse to make a comment to you on how I feel about the first couple sentences. I am glad that you posted the note and I think thats awesome and great and thats no problem. I think thats a good idea, I wish I would have thought of that sooner. I wish not to comment to the last remark you have made. Samesexmarriage101 (talk) 08:22, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Bill Status for HF 1054.
  2. ^ Bill Status of SB10
  3. ^ Long, Ray (February 14, 2013). "Illinois Senate approves gay marriage - chicagotribune.com". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 14 February 2013. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Samesexmarriage101&oldid=1063737345"