2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Independent Democrat Party. Since you had some involvement with the Independent Democrat Party redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Illinois House of Representatives
GoldRingChip, this question pertains to the Wikipedia article Dennis Hastert. As shown by this diff, you appear to have been the first editor to add subsections for Hastert's electoral history in the Illinois House of Representatives. As you can see by this Talk Page entry, posted today by Neutrality, it would be helpful to know the source(s) of your statistics. I realize it's been more than seven years, which is a very long time in Wikipedia terms, but if you could possibly recollect where this data came from, we'd be most grateful. Thanks for your consideration. Kent Krupa (talk) 16:48, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Massachusetts's 2nd congressional district special election, 1838 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Praemonitus (talk) 20:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm a little confused. I think something's gone wrong. Gamaliel (talk) 23:39, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for bringing it to my attention. I've just edited it, which should have fixed the problem. Is it ok now?—GoldRingChip 23:42, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yes. Thanks! Gamaliel (talk) 23:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
- Keep them coming.—GoldRingChip 00:39, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I noticed that you edited the above page. Do you think this page is necessary? I split it from Seniority in the United States Senate, but my split was reverted a few times, and another editor commented that he didn't think it was necessary. The list of senators by seniority should only exist once to avoid duplication, so perhaps I should tag this page for deletion. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I saw the dispute about the split but I don't feel strongly either way. I guess it's an unnecessary split because it just creates a duplicate article. In those future cases in which the current Congress has had replacement Senators, THEN the Congressional list would be different from the Current list, but I think it's just excessive.
Thanks for your work on House elections. I've started updating them for the 2014 returns (I am going alphabetically, done with Alabama and most of Arizona). I am new here; in fact, you have been on here for as many years as I have days! So, if you have any hints or advice for work on those pages, let me know (with 11 days here, I am not sure of the best way - will I see it if you do it here? Or my talk page? I did put this page on my watchlist). Thanks again. -- PeterLFlomPhD (talk) 23:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- It's great that you're adding this information, Be Bold!
- Use better sources than Ballotpedia. Ballotpedia can get you started on where to find the better sources, but Ballotpedia can be edited just like Wikipedia, so it shouldn't be cited as a source.
- Instead of listing any further suggestions here, I've made edits to Arizona's 8th congressional district#2014, which should give you an idea of how to proceed. Check here for the edit history.
- Come back to me with any questions. —GoldRingChip 13:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- OK, I fixed up Arizona's sources. Then I was looking at Alabama. I noticed that many of the results don't have references. Not sure what to do about that
- I think I will wait until September when the Almanac of American Politics comes out and has all the results in a nice easy to read format. That's a verifiable source, too, and won't have link rot. Does that make sense? --- PeterLFlomPhD (talk) 21:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yes.—GoldRingChip 12:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)