User talk:AMittelman

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

We're so glad you're here! --A. B. 04:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:BillPress.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:BillPress.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George Tenet edit[edit]

Hi there. Regarding your edit about Sen. John Heinz: it's not necessary to indicate whether he is alive or not since the article isn't about him and it's not critical to the article. Also, it's info that someone can get from Heinz's page. Alcarillo 15:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mitch McConnell[edit]

Thanks for adding useful content to the article. However, I have to point out a few things: 1) Quotations are never bolded; 2) We don't sign our names to content, ever. 3) We don't all-cap articles that are linked to. 4) We don't use <b> for bolding, but rather ''' (three single quote marks) 5) We don't use <br> to separate paragraphs - a line space between them works fine. It may help to spend some time looking at Wikipedia's Manual of Style or look at various articles to see how content is normally formatted. Thanks! Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 04:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I put the bold, and especially the one line spacing in because the quotes and were difficult to read, however, if the rules are against it, so be it. A line space between paragraphs works fine is a matter of opinion obviously, and the rule seems arbitrary, but as I said, if the rules are against more than just that small spacing between quote paragraphs, then so be it. However, the all CAPS in the CBS NEWS FACE THE NATION attribution are the requirement of CBS NEWS in order to quote from the transcript of their show. Please see http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/face_061707.pdf for confirmation of same. I have looked at Wikipedia's Manual of Style

There is no requirement to all-cap CBS News Face the Nation on that page. We will follow our normal styling methods here. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 04:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And who makes you the final arbiter of all things here?

I'm not (and there's no call for being insolent). But I've worked on the Wikipedia for over three years, and I know how content is formatted. Besides, my interpretation of the content at the link is accurate -- they say who to credit, and say nothing that it be all caps. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 04:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your attitude comes off as if you are the final arbiter of all things here, so I responded in kind, and not as being insolent, and not as someone being defensive either (in case that will be your next comment). Your interpretation is just that, an interpretation, which is an opinion, and opinions are not infallible or above reproach. I looked at the source material, and since the transcript was purposefully written with PLEASE CREDIT ANY QUOTES OR EXCERPTS FROM THIS CBS TELEVISION PROGRAM TO "CBS NEWS' FACE THE NATION" I took that to be literal, and saw no reason to quote it in a format otherwise. Of course, this is a matter of interpretation, and as the author of this portion of the Mitch McConnell article, I used my judgment to follow the literal request of CBS and Burrell Transcripts as a necessary requirement.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AMittelman (talk • contribs)

Ernest Borgnine[edit]

This edit[1] is not constructive. The fact that Ernest Borgnine came up in passing in a political discussion on Meet the Press does not warrant inclusion as an entire section in the article on Ernest Borgnine. In fact, it does not warrant mentioning at all in the article. This has no significance whatsoever in the lengthy career of this actor. Please be mindful of WP:NOT#INFO. "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." Thanks, --Mantanmoreland 01:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It makes him topical and referenced and culturally significant in the context of a Presidential election while in his 90th year. That is significant. Most people under the age of 30, 35, or even 40, have not even heard of Borgnine, it reintroduces him to a new audience. Obviously, we disagree, and the interesting thing about Wikipedia is that it is an egomaniacal oligarchy, so you being around longer than I have will mean that I am overruled, right or wrong.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AMittelman (talk • contribs)

Ernest Borgnine is already culturally significant, and the fact that he was mentioned off-hand in an interview show, in a manner that makes fun of him, is of absolutely zero significance and not warranting a separate section. Instead of railing against nonexistent "oligarchies" you should bone up on Wiki policies. But apparently you care as little about basic stuff like "what belongs in an article" as you do about simple things like signing your talk page posts or indenting your replies.--Mantanmoreland 14:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for not indenting or signing my talk page post, if you will notice, I have only had two or three talk page postings, and since they were on my own talk page, I was not aware that I needed to sign postings on my own talk page. As for the quote from "Meet the Press," I did not think that there was anything about it that was making fun of him. The reality is that Ernest Borgnine is older than Brad Pitt, and there is nothing wrong with that, and in the context of a political rally, Bill Clinton sucks all the air out of the room, but Bob Dole would not, and in a Hollywood context, just like Brad Pitt would, but Ernest Borgnine would not. Not making fun of him, just stating fact. Again, it is a matter of opinion whether what I quoted is significant, I believe that it is, and you believe that it is not. AMittelman 16:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From Gravel's Webpage[edit]

We're Still in the Race! January 4th, 2008 by J. Skyler S. Mc...

Once again, the Mainstream Media has not gotten the facts straight.

MSNBC pundit Keith Olbermann has incorrectly declared that Sen. Gravel has dropped out of the race following the January third caucus in Iowa. This is not true, and Sen. Gravel is still an active member in this race. We are requesting that MSNBC and Keith Olbermann retract their statement, and issue an apology to the campaign for promoting blatantly false misinformation.

Again, Sen. Gravel has not dissolved his campaign, and has no intentions of doing so

Turtlescrubber (talk) 06:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Careful[edit]

You are about to violate the 3rr on the 2008 election page. Please stop reverting the edits of others. Turtlescrubber (talk) 06:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Date linking isn't done anymore[edit]

Please be advised that date linking is not done anymore. See MOS:UNLINKYEARS and MOS:UNLINKDATES. Thus it's July 18, 2010, not July 18, 2010, and next year will be 2011, not 2011. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Servius Tullius[edit]

Stop what you're doing to Servius Tullius right now. Your sentence editing is good, but you're adding frivolous links, and I'm going to revert the whole thing if you don't stop. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The links that I have added clarify the paragraphs, which were badly written, and which use words which are not generally used in everyday speech or writing in some instances. I have used the links to clarify the meanings. As an example, I am a very intelligent person, with a very large vocabulary, however, I had never heard the word "overweening" before this article. Rather than changing the word, I provided a link, to explain the meaning to others. This was just one example. AMittelman (talk) 22:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those kinds of links should go to Wiktionary. I agree with what you're saying in principle, but this kind of language is usually a holdover from the 1911 Britannica or other material used to start the article. It should be modernized. You were also linking words like "treacherous" — again, a Wiktionary link would do it, if you thought that was too hard a word. To clarify (was in a rush because of the edit conflict): many of the words you linked were to disambiguation pages, and others were so general that they shed no light on Servius Tullius at all. "Franchise," for instance, leads to a disambiguation page; even if you linked to suffrage, it wouldn't tell the reader anything about what's meant here. You need links to articles that explain ancient Roman law, politics, religion, and society. If you aren't familiar enough with the subject matter to know what these articles are, perhaps you could leave suggestions on the talk page for improving the article. As I said, I didn't want to revert because your basic copyediting was fine. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree! The link to the franchise disambiuation page specifically provided the context for the very specialized meaning of the word as used (as a synonym of suffrage), as in expansion of the right to vote, which was the proper meaning and context of the word, and which clearly showed that there are multiple meanings of the word franchise. You are correct, linking to suffage on its own would not help, but the disambiguation page would help anyone to understand the meaning and context better. My link to "citizen" was very important, because being a citizen of Rome was very important, and central to Roman history, as was "class"es and several others. My link of "treacherous" was very appropriate, because it provided context of a daughters "betrayal" (what treacherous links to) of her father, however, I would say that "treacherous" was my weakest link to, but still appropriate, and provides contrast for the following sentance. I am very familiar with the subject matter, and leaving suggestions on the talk page would do nothing for someone who is not a regular contributor to wikipedia, and was just a casual reader. Your criticism comes off as just being cranky and crabby. Your reversion does no one any good, and instead of just getting angry, why don't you start a suggestion on a few of the edits/links that you disagreed with, instead of trashing all of them? What you did was just destructive.

Now calm down, sweetheart. I'm not angry. Was just trying to stop you so I didn't revert your good edits along with the questionable. There are indeed multiple meanings of franchise, but only one applies here. Servius Tullius wasn't going to open an Olive Garden or Burger King at the Porta Capena. There are people who watch this article, and I assure you your comment would be read on the talk page and responded to. Links to disambiguation pages from within an article's body copy are frowned upon; there are bots and human editors who patrol for these and change them or request that they be changed to a link to an actual article. And for instance there is an article specifically on Roman citizenship, which is what was being extended here. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sweetheart? No one likes to be patronized, do you? I agree that disambiguation pages should not USUALLY be linked to, rather than the specific page, but sometimes, disambiguation pages provide context that is otherwise not found on the specific linked page alone. As far as expanding the franchise, my link was in reference to suffrage, which is how I read expanding the franchise to mean, however, simply linking from franchise to suffrage, without the disambiguation page would leave out a part of the meaning, that would also be complimentary to the link to "Roman citizenship." I honestly can't believe that you went "there" regarding Olive Garden or Burger King! As far as watching this article, there are people who watch most substantial articles, this one is no more or less special. Relax! AMittelman (talk) 23:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, forgot I didn't have a cup of eggnog and a plate of cookies in hand, and that you couldn't see the streak of gray in my hair but the glint of charm in a former Southern belle's eyes. That is, my wish to inject a bit of levity obviously fell flat. And indeed I am too crabby and cranky ever to allow myself to feel patronized, so I apologize for not being sensitive to your feelings. Here are the relevant sections condensed from WP:LINK, with my explanations:

WP:UNDERLINK: In general, links should be created to:
- relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers to understand the current article more fully. That is, readers who don't know what the word "accede" means in general can be referred to [[wikt:accede|accede]]. But better, since I agree with you that the word "accede" fails to clarify matters, rewrite the sentence using clearer language. I thought your copyediting was good; it was your linking that I found otiose. But instead of a link to accede (an article tagged for being unclear and confusing), link to the article that explains what constitutional procedure in ancient Rome is meant, which is what I did by linking "accede without election" to the article lex curiata de imperio, which explains how the procedure by which Servius Tullius came to the kingship differed from that of his predecessors.
- articles with relevant information. I also agree that "franchise" isn't a helpful word here. I think here it means "extended rights of citizenship to more men, thus allowing them to vote." The relevant information is at Roman citizenship, which explains who had legal and political rights in Rome and who didn't.
- articles explaining technical terms, jargon or slang expressions. … If there is no appropriate Wikipedia article, an interwiki link to Wiktionary could be used. "Patricians" was already linked; if it hadn't been, it wouldn't have been useful to link simply to patrician, as this is a technical term in regard to ancient Rome and means something quite specific at the time of Servius Tullius. It describes only a few families who had the right to call themselves "patricians", and was something you had to be born into, not simply a lifestyle or attitude, and the correct link is Patrician (ancient Rome).
- proper names that are likely to be unfamiliar to readers. Compitalia is a specialized term that may not be familiar even to someone with basic knowledge of ancient Rome; readers who don't know what words like "dynasty" mean can be referred to [[wikt:dynasty|dynasty]]. "Dynasty" in this article was specifically "Etruscan dynasty" and could be linked to Kings of Rome, or better, if we had such an article, to Tarquins. Or, if you thought a dab page was best (I agree with you that this is sometimes useful, but mine are always edited out even when I leave an invisible note explaining why it was done deliberately), Tarquin is what's needed here to explain "Etruscan dynasty."
- Always link to the article on the most specific topic appropriate to the context from which you link: it will generally contain more focused information, as well as links to more general topics. See above with "patrician." To use an example given at WP:LINK in modified form, if you have "Greek alphabet" you don't link [[Greek]] [[alphabet]], but Greek alphabet.
- Unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article, avoid linking terms whose meaning can be understood by most readers of the English Wikipedia. This would apply to "divine" and "treacherous" and such. The only reason to link to "divine" here would be to explain the ancient Roman concept of divinity, which is quite different from the monotheistic belief system most readers are likely to be familiar with. Therefore the most useful links might be Religion in ancient Rome or List of Roman deities.

Now why would I take time to do this? Because I value your contributions and don't want you to think otherwise. Again, I am in complete agreement with your goal of making the article readable and of updating and streamlining its language. In no way do I wish to discourage that. I'm simply calling your attention to the stated MOS guidelines on linking Cynwolfe (talk)

Oyy vey! You clearly have too much time on your hands! I am dying, so I don't, and right now I am in too much pain to argue either. You clearly have too much time on your hands!

Disambiguation link notification for April 21[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Troy weight, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Metric and Sterling (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) 09:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Monseigneur, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Albert II and Luxemburg (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) 12:12, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Stark Edit[edit]

Hi! I just wanted to let you know that I undid an edit you made to the Pete Stark page. You edited the text regarding the size of California's congressional delegation to read, "He is also the dean of California's 53-member (to become a 55-member delegation only after the January 3, 2012 swearing in ceremonies, due to census related decennial reapportionment) Congressional delegation." California's current delegation is 55 members (53 in the House, 2 in the Senate). Also, California did not gain any seats due to the decennial reapportionment based upon the 2010 census.

Happy Holidays!

Sjrr124 (talk) 16:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 2[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mel Watt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page FHA (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) 11:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

VisualEditor[edit]

Thank you so much for trying out the new VisualEditor! The transition can be a little challenging to those of us who know something about Wiki markup already. :) If you insert some of the familiar Wikimarkup code (like [[]] or {{}}), the VisualEditor thinks you are trying to type these things and puts "<nowiki>" tags around it. To actually achieve the same effects, you just need to use the link, template and other icons in the VisualEditor itself. (For more detail, please see Wikipedia:VisualEditor/User guide and the Wikipedia:VisualEditor/FAQ.) I believe that the developers are working now on some way to make this more clear so that people who know Wiki markup don't find themselves facing the tags with no way to understand why. :)

If you have feedback about your experience or encounter anything that looks like a bug, please let us know at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback. And thanks again. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 00:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Dreier[edit]

I have reverted your edit to David Dreier, under our Biographies of Living Persons policy, because what you added is a rather extraordinary claim, and requires extraordinary sourcing. Rawstory doesn't qualify. If you don't like that reason for removal, I will also note that the story in question is from 2004 (it's out of date), and that it doesn't make any claim that Dreier is married to anyone. In 2004, there was only one state in which same-sex marriage was recognized in any case (Massachusetts, courtesy of Goodridge v. Department of Public Health. Please follow our requirements on biographical articles about living subjects and do not attempt to restore that link. Horologium (talk) 00:48, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an extraordinary claim at all, it has been discussed at length on a variety of television political programs, but unfortunately, there is no way to link any of those. Dreier lost the House Republican Leader position over it, and Barney Frank was quoted about it numerous times, on both television and in print. I watch several hours of political programming every day, and I am not wrong about this. The claim is far from extraordinary, as a matter of fact, it was long an open secret, and there was even talk of an ethics investigation, since Brad Smith earned the highest legally permitted staff salary on the hill, including more than much more powerful and important staff members made, and more than some Assistants to the President make. Also, keep in mind that there are plenty of profiles on Wikipedia which refer to opposite sex partners or life partners or significant other, without using the word "marriage." I did not say "married" or "husband," I said "spouse". But, don't get your panties in a bunch over it, I will not restore the link.

A bunch of sources from 2004-2012....

http://sbsentinel.com/2012/03/representative-david-dreier-to-retire-after-32-years-in-congress/

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=235706

http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2009/07/david-dreier-r-ca-caught-up-in-ethics.html

http://www.opencongress.org/wiki/David_Dreier

http://gaycitynews.com/gcn_339/forcedhillouting.html

http://www.towleroad.com/2004/12/dreier_gay_asha.html

http://www.24-7pressrelease.com/press-release/congressman-david-dreier-gets-spoofed-in-a-new-los-angeles-musical-highlighting-republican-hypocrisy-from-widestance-productions-173953.php

http://larryflynt.com/notebook.php?id=88

http://www.laweekly.com/2004-09-23/news/the-outing/full/

http://home.conservativebabylon.com/2007/11/07/david-dreier-r-calif/

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4916648

http://www.friendsofliberty.com/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=1938

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.blogactive.com/image_files/0904/dreier_roy_cohn_award.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.blogactive.com/?p%3D87&h=481&w=381&sz=164&tbnid=xKLEW_KDIL3TxM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=71&zoom=1&usg=__5SrKn7mqlqMR_yTjkf5wY3rgGSQ=&docid=i0TMtlh6D8MRSM&sa=X&ei=wUNOUq3ZMIrk9gSsx4GQBw&ved=0CEQQ9QEwBA (User signature added to entry 2 months after date of original posting, October 5, 2013, because user AMittelman forgot to sign at the time of original posting) AMittelman (talk) 19:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, stating that someone is married (when he states that he is not) is an extraordinary claim. The term "spouse" has a specific meaning, and it is not a synonym for "partner" or "significant other" or any of the other terms describing relationships other than marriage. Further, the source you cited does not make any mention of a marriage or other sort of domestic partnership; instead, it insinuates (yes, insinuates) that there is a possibly improper relationship between the two individuals. As for the other "sources" you list, every single one of them, save one, is from a blog or a discussion forum, which are in no way appropriate citations for loaded allegations. The exception is LA Weekly, which is a reliable source in some contexts, but I don't believe that it is in this case, since it is simply repeating the allegations from a blog and from Raw Story. The writer of that article, Doug Ireland, is an LGBT activist (and very anti-Republican); it's hardly surprising that he'd take an opportunity to target a Republican in a marginal district. You may find it amusing to speculate about someone's sexual orientation, but it's not appropriate to do so in an encyclopedia. We don't deal in gossip or whispered character assassination; we stick with facts which are discussed in reliable sources, and neither blogs nor discussion forums are reliable. As to Barney Frank and his speculation, he is welcome to do so, but we shouldn't be repeating it, any more than we would repeat speculation about his personal life. Horologium (talk) 06:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Insinuates, huh? Your logic about the reliability of Doug Ireland being suspect because he is LGBT is supremely flawed, just like it was for the discriminatory Republicans who questioned the quality of the judicial decision of Federal District Judge Vaughan Walker simply because they thought (at the time) that he was gay, even though he was not publicly out. Of course he turned out to be gay, and his sexuality had nothing to do with the quality of his legal opinion/decision, and this was upheld by the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, and ultimately by the United States Supreme Court. As I said, the vast majority of the documentation for Dreier's sexuality was on television, which cannot be linked to. By your logic, you would describe the articles about the sexuality of Larry Craig as insinuation, even after he was caught soliciting sex in an airport bathroom stall. David Dreier has LIVED with his chief of staff, Brad Smith, for MORE THAN twenty years, AND has improperly paid his SPOUSE an annual salary which is higher than any other House Chief of Staff or House Committee Chief of Staff, and if he would have elected to run again in another district, would have been subjected to investigation by the House Ethics Committee. He has never denied that he was gay, and he accepted the prohibition of the House Republican Conference to his elevation to Republican Leader due to his sexuality. As I said, I WILL NOT REVERT THE BIO, however, your logic is supremely flawed, and appears to be questioning and discriminatory simply because you do not approve of gay people or same sex marriage. Further, as a prominent conservative Republican, he would not get married to a man for political reasons, even if it were legally available in his home state, as it now is. He broke the law and/or violated ethics, he is an extreme hypocrite, and he is a coward, in a long line of Republicans from Robert Bauman to Ed Schrock to Larry Craig to David Dreier (and several others) who got caught as a hypocrite and in some cases breaking the law because of their sexuality.

Oh, by the way, unless you know David Dreier personally, he never stated that he was not married publicly, and as a matter of fact, as far as I know, he never addressed the allegations about his sexuality in public at all. So if you believe that he has stated he was not married to his Chief of Staff, then you may well know him in some capacity other than as a citizen observer. (User signature added to entry 2 months after date of original posting, October 5, 2013, because user AMittelman forgot to sign at the time of original posting) AMittelman (talk) 19:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I won't rebut your whole screed, but you are FAR off-base about my views on LGBT issues and same-sex marriage. I strongly support same-sex marriage, and so does my husband. In fact, one of the reasons we moved across the country (at significant expense) was because our marriage (performed in Connecticut) was valid in Washington, but not in Florida (where we were living until August). Please get off your high horse and stop assuming that everyone who cares about BLP issues is a homophobic asshole. I've also reverted BLP nonsense on Democratic politicians as well; the BLP policy does not have exceptions for hypocrites, Republicans, closet cases, or criminals. Horologium (talk) 01:18, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will only say that I never even thought about using the word a**h**e to describe you or anyone else on Wikipedia, and even if I did so privately, I would have the tact, decorum, and good sense NEVER to use such a word in a public forum or any place where other people could see, unless it was a direct quote, and even then, I would write it with "*". Typically, I do not refer to people who I do not know using profanity, to do so would be tacky, and just plain wrong. The fact is that David Dreier has NEVER denied he was in a long term marriage type situation with his chief of staff, Brad Smith, nor has he denied any other variation of words used to describe the relationship. The easier thing to do, rather than object to the use of the word "spouse," would have been to simply suggest another word or phrase which you found to be more suitable, such as "partner," or "life partner," or "significant other," or similar. In any case, the use of profanity was not and is not warranted. Would you also object to some variation for describing the relationship of James Buchanan with William Rufus King, which Andrew Jackson and others referred to as "Aunt Fancy and Miss Nancy," and who also lived together for many years? (Do not get me wrong, I am not planning or thinking about changing the box for Buchanan or King to married or spouse or any rough equivalent, since there are already descriptors aplenty in their respective biographies.) (User signature added to entry 2 months after date of original posting, October 5, 2013, because user AMittelman forgot to sign at the time of original posting) AMittelman (talk) 19:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although it's two months after the disagreement which you and I had regarding David Dreier and "SPOUSE," it just occurred to me to check the Wikipedia definition of the word "SPOUSE," which was the word which I used to describe David Dreier's relationship, and such use which you disagreed with, stating "The term "spouse" has a specific meaning, and it is not a synonym for "partner" or "significant other" or any of the other terms describing relationships other than marriage." According to Wikipedia, "SPOUSE" is exactly what I claimed it was being used for, and NOT what you stated. Please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spouse. Of particular note from the SPOUSE entry, "Although a spouse is a form of significant other, the latter term also includes non-marital partners who play a social role similar to that of a spouse, but do not have rights and duties deserved by law to a spouse." Additionally, there is a link on that page, regarding "work spouses," which is also quite germane, of particular note on that entry is: "'Work spouse' is a phrase, mostly in American English, referring to a co-worker, usually of the opposite sex, with whom one shares a special relationship, having bonds similar to those of a marriage. A 'work spouse' is also referred to as 'workplace spouse' or 'office wife'." Although I am sure you will continue to disagree with me on this point, and I will not attempt to change the David Dreier page again, I find it quite amusing that Wikipedia validates my usage of the word "SPOUSE" in this instance, and contradicts what you so emphatically based your position on. While I will not make any further changes to that page, if you were to decide to re-revert to my previous change there, I would not be opposed, but I may die from the shock if you do so. AMittelman (talk) 19:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dan Boren, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Republican. 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) 08:50, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Detroit Lakes, Minnesota, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page E.S.T.. 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) 09:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 30[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thomas Penn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Surveyors. 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) 09:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 26[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Otter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Waterlogged. 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) 11:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, AMittelman. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, AMittelman. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, AMittelman. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, AMittelman. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 5[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nicholas Winton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Czech (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Governors[edit]

Please source all of your edits. If you did, you would realize that Shapiro is the third Jewish governor of PA. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 15:23, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected info that Shapiro would be the first Jewish Governor of Pennsylvania, but was not aware of the third, who might that be? AMittelman (talk) 15:53, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You did not exactly get it right either, I corrected the word SECOND to the word THIRD, since whoever made reference to Ed Rendell after I made reference to Milton Shapp, had not changed second to third. AMittelman (talk) 16:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]