User talk:Designate

HI... you have just expanded the article Charles D. Baker, Jr. by approximately 5x its previous size. As such, it might be eligible for DYK (Did you know...?) on the front page. If the article includes some peculiar or unusual fact about the person, you might want to suggest the article at DYK nominations. check it out: Template talk:Did you know‎ Seb az86556 (talk) 22:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Charles D. Baker, Jr.

On August 19, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Charles D. Baker, Jr., which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Orlady (talk) 04:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Kudos

Nice work on Charles D. Baker, Jr.; it was a fun read. [1] Cheers, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 05:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Congrats and good wishes

Congratulations on your first DYK, and here's to continued quality contributions! --Orlady (talk) 03:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

GA review

Hello - I have reviewed Charles D. Baker, Jr., which you listed at the Good Article nominees page. My review of the article can be found here. As you can see, I've raised quite a few issues with the article. Before you panic/become depressed/burn me in effigy, though, here are some things to bear in mind:

• The points I raise are not necessarily all things that need to be addressed before I list it as a GA. Instead, they are things that I think could improve the article. In my view, the actual GA status is of secondary importance in the GA process; what's more important is improving the article, and I think that goal is best served by making as many suggestions as possible.
• In my experience, I'm among the most stringent GA reviewers out there, especially in the "well-written" category, where I tend to review GA and FA candidates in essentially the same way. Again, I do this because I think it's best for the article; however, if you think the points I've raised are too nit-picky or minor and you'd rather not address them, I may be willing to promote the article without them all being addressed.
• The opinions I express in my GA reviews are just that - my opinions (I also express some things, like grammatical rules or the requirements of WP:V, that are not my opinions). If you disagree with any of my opinions, please say so; you don't need to convince me that you're right, just that your position is a reasonable one.

List of Governors of Maine

Hi, just a notice that FLC nominators are expected to respond in a timely manner to comments made by reviewers. I noticed this edit, so I did not close the FLC as some of the reviewers were suggesting, but I don't always have time to check the list. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 00:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Xenobot Mk V/requests#WP:USGOVS

Need further input before task can commence. Cheers, –xeno^talk 14:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

WP Governors

Thanks for bringing the US Governors WikiProject back to life. If you'd like to participate in a Signpost article interview to attract new members to the project, check out the discussion on the project's talk page. Keep up the good work! -Mabeenot (talk) 03:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Utah Governor List

Please check my latest comment on the FLC, particularly the bit about Term vs Terms. I know I kind of held up the Maine list because of this, but I've stated a real concern with it (I don't think it will allow uniformity across the whole wiki due to cases like New Jersey, which may not be as edge-casey as it seems), so I'd like your comments on that. Thanks. --Golbez (talk) 04:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles - logo

I liked the way you argued in favor of a "checkmark" - that was a very persuasive list of attributes, in the kind of aesthetic debate where it's far easier for people just to say "I like this one, it looks neat" :) I quite like User:Locos epraix's suggestion of copying the Spanish Wikipedia's symbol - it seems a sensible compromise between what we have at the moment, and the advantages you listed. TheGrappler (talk) 16:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Governors

I saw you stopped by the Governor of Indiana page. I had put this on Golbez's talk page today:

"I've gone thru and updated 10 FL lists... Hawaii thru Wisconsin. I've tried to make them all consistent with current FL standards (aka utah plan). I mostly didn't update the wording in the lead or first few paragraphs, just made sure the paragraphs are in the right spot. Also checked for linkrot and updated the citations where necessary. Could you check and make sure things are ok. I'll do the same for Alabama-Delaware, but thankfully you've been keeping them upto date."

Golbez doesn't seem to talk alot, so I'm not sure if things are ok. Any comments you would be really appreciated. I saw you changed the images in the infobox to be larger. I've been struggling with that. In alot of cases, including Indiana's, the infobox is to long compared to the lead. I've considered dropping the state seals and only keep an image if it's the governors seal or flag. Thoughts? Also saw you wikilinked the Governor of Indiana in the lead's first sentence. Some articles had it wikilinked and other didn't. I unwikilinked it because that was how Utah had it. What is the correct way? Didn't know if you saw this, but the "Governor of Colorado" link and "List of Governors of Colorado" link were combined into the "Governor of Colorado" link with the list's content. Wonder if this should be done to others eventually? Bgwhite (talk) 04:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Richard Neal

The article Richard Neal you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Richard Neal for things which need to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jim McGovern

The article Jim McGovern you nominated as a good article has passed . Congrats ~DC ^{We Can Work It Out} 18:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

job vs. campaign

What someone did to prepare for the job (as opposed to preparing for the campaign) is relevant to the job. The job is (supposedly) more important than the campaign for it. The personal life is (supposedly) least important. That why the chronology is within each section, as opposed to overall. I didn't come up with it, but I agree with it. As for the really large articles such as Obama, I believe they have sub-articles just about the campaigns so it's different. The other issue involved is that because of 'currentism', we often have Undue Weight on the campaign as opposed to the actual job. Mixing them together therefore trivializes the actual job they're (supposedly) doing. Also, the links to the elections articles (which is where most of this stuff belongs, anyway) are important. Flatterworld (talk) 01:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Do what you like. imo starting out the lede with 'politician' and prefixing his current position with his party affiliation makes him sound like a political hack instead of the holder of an important national office. I also don't see the point in stating that he's the past mayor of Springfield twice within the lede itself. Flatterworld (talk) 16:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

FLC

I'm under the impression that there are still unweighed viewpoints in the discussion regarding references, it might be helpful to notify those involved in the discussion in hopes of reaching some type of consensus. Afro (Talk) 14:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Michael W. Morrissey

Thank you so much for helping improve the article of the Michael W. Morrissey.Plyjacks (talk) 21:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Bravo on his biography you edited! Have a happy new year! Plyjacks (talk) 23:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you once again for correcting my mistake on the Massachusetts Senate. Morrissey's DA site is up as well: http://www.mass.gov/norfolkda/ , Take care Plyjacks (talk) 02:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Rutherford Hayes FAC

I've renominated Rutherford Hayes for FAC. If you have any more comments to add this time around, I'd appreciate it. Thanks, Coemgenus 15:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC).

Massachusetts State Senate

I've called it Massachusetts State Senators to keep it consistent with the other state templates. I keep a uniform style on all State Legislative Templates. Adding the 187th General Court ruins the uniformity, as well adding the Senate Delegations also ruins it. Leave that information on the State Senate page.--Jack Cox (talk) 21:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course I can see that. The reason I have it labled as State Senators is because there is a wikipedia project working on it like that. I've been putting lots of hours into going over these articles on Wikipedia. I've made substantial changes along the way but I'm asking for some Brevity here. I've been slowed down because of this protracted fight. I have no intention of changing it, nor will I. I apologize if I sound like a cranky old man but it's just very frustrating.--Jack Cox (talk) 22:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)