User talk:GoldRingChip/Archives/2013

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

#switch and #if

With this edit, you introduced a #switch command. They should never be used in an article and in the article it was added, it makes no sense to have it as New Jersey will never be Georgia or Washington. Bgwhite (talk) 06:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Sorry— you're right. I used it in a template that I've been substituting: {{User:GoldRingChip/sandbox3}}. Unfortunately, that #switch doesn't substitute properly. Therefore, I will remove it. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.—GoldRingChip 16:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Congress

I am actually updating and expanding on the information, including:

- New Census Information - New Election Results

I am also cleaning the page to make it look more presentable. How appealing was SD At-Large prior to me updating it? Not very appealing at all. It's kind of lame that you cannot change something, without another party being offended and recycling it with the trash that preceded it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ANTONI20 (talk • contribs) 14:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The split list for the time when there were two seats is the accepted pattern, though. To mix concurrent and sequential tenures in one list is confusing for the reader, and unhelpful for the researcher. Kraxler (talk) 14:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
OK. Can you find a way to combine the lists (aka "remove the split") without making other changes to the list?—GoldRingChip 14:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Response

The information on the pages are substantial, but I also think some of the information can be redundant and confusing, such as former districts. That's why I created a separate link for those areas (since those pages were already in existence). Also, under Recent Elections there was information going as far back as 1980. If you want that information retained, then it might be best to put that under the individual member's page and not for the district as a whole. I kept election information for four election cycles, which is more than enough to consider recent. If you want electoral information dating back to 1900, which is what is on some of those pages, then maybe a separate link should be considered. I just felt some of the pages needed updating in factual information, which is mostly the changes that were made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ANTONI20 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Districts - old info

Hey there! I read your comment about the 25th district. I'm not sure what you mean about not saving town info. I placed it all in past tense since it applied to the last redistrict. Let me know what you'd like me to save.....Pvmoutside (talk) 23:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Huh? You're right. I don't know what I meant. Let's just forget I said anything.—GoldRingChip 14:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Election Results

Elections from 2002 and 2004 are not "recent." As a result, those election results should appear under individual members pages and not under the district itself. The purpose is not to overload people with information, but to demonstrate recent electoral trends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ANTONI20 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

  • I don't see why election results have to be recent. This is a historical article.—GoldRingChip 01:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Mass 1 and 2

On the pages I am changing, I am making updates, such as: - Updated census and demographic information - Electoral results from 2006-2012. This meets the definition of recent. Any electoral results preceding 2006 should be placed on the individual members page. The purpose is to reflect the district in the present for the average reader to absorb. - I am also fixing up the appearance of representatives. There is way too much information down there and it takes focus away from the page, which is the district and not a particular individual.

If there are particular changes you can contribute, that would be great, yet reverting to the prior outdated information and messy format is hardly appreciated. The previous articles were hardly presentable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ANTONI20 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

  • No.
    • These are historical articles. Do not remove old information.
    • You are reverting to old versions of the "List of Representatives" without consensus.
    • You are not signing your comments. Use "~~~~" from now on.
  • Based on all these points, I suggest you learn more about how to use Wikipedia. I suggest you start here: Help:Contents. And until then, I shall continue to revert your changes and I suggest you make further changes more carefully. —GoldRingChip 01:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Changes

We seem to be having a disagreement on what format is best for the pages. You seem to believe your format it best, along with the abundance of information you are providing. I believe you are creating information overload. That is the reason why electoral results from 20 years ago are not pertinent to the average Wikipedia user (to you they may be). The page is about an abstract object, not about an individual. By overloading it with the abundance of information you are providing, it is detracting from the page itself. Furthermore, your definition of chronological order is in conflict with that of anyone who follows elections. In this case, the most important (aka: the most recent) is listed first, followed by each preceding election. You seem to think that a reader is interested in 1992 first and 2012 last. Wikipedia is NOT the National Archives, nor does anyone expect it to be. If you want to improve on the information I am providing that is fine, however to just be dismissive to what I consider constructive criticism, and merely reverting back to outdated information, with no focus on modern times, as in today, the present, is childish. Rather than fixing my contributions on a daily basis, maybe it may be more constructive for us to update each page and then discuss where we disagree, maybe then I may be open to your arguments. However, reversing my contributions hardly convinces me that you are open to such a discussion and it only delays my ability to update recent information on the pages, information which is pertinent, such as 2012 election results, 2010 population, 2010 demographics, and the renumbering or transition of districts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ANTONI20 (talk • contribs) 06:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

  • I'd like to say that I really appreciate the contributions you make. But you lost me at "childish."—GoldRingChip 12:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

US speaker election

Hello, I have created a discussion about whether and how information on the election of speaker for the 113th Congress should be included on Wikipedia. As you've made edits to this subject, I wanted to bring your attention to the discussion. It can be found here. - Nbpolitico (talk) 12:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Thank you. I'll check it out.—GoldRingChip 13:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Stubborn

Since your stubborness is apparent, along with your ego, let's just make this conclusion: Readers are NOT interested in the electroal results of any particular congressional district in 1800. If you seem to believe so, then your thinking is warped. Also, if you believe readers are interested in electoral results, then why would you place them toward the end, and at what year do you begin and end? You're not the Congressional historian, even though you have convinced yourself otherwise. Maybe you should concentrate on the House of Commons and I promise I will not undo your irrelevant idiots. You and I have a difference of opinion and unfortunately you have a difficult time dealing with criticism (so I decided to make it much easier for you). — Preceding unsigned comment added by ANTONI20 (talk • contribs) 06:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Congressional Districts

We seem to be going back and forth and it seems to be leading nowhere. So here's what I propose:

1. Allow me to update the 2010 Census figures for the districts that I have 2. Allow me to create Recent Elections, covering 2006-2012. 3. Allow me to update demographic information for the districts that I have. 4. Allow me to update Presidential Performance for the districts between 2000 - 2012 5. Allow me to update Voter Registration Information

In return, I will allow you complete control over listing Representatives. I will also allow you to keep your election results going back to any year of your choice. However, I would make the following recommendation:

1. Title it "Historical Election Results" and list it starting with 2004 and working in a descending order. I also think that just for the sake of appearance, the format for those results should be three boxes across (Democrat, Republican, Third Parties) and with the winner bold faced. My opinion is that it gives it a much better appearance.

Our disagreement is based on approach. You see the districts as being historical. I see it as being informative. Therefore, we can make it both. You give me my half and I'll allow you your half. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ANTONI20 (talk • contribs) 06:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

  • This isn't a matter of compromise with me, because I can't make decisions for how Wikipedia works. I just think you haven't learned how to edit Wikipedia and I'm trying to help you learn the ropes. I don't want control, it's not my website. There are thousands of editors and millions of readers and we've developed consensus methods. As for your proposal itself: this entire website, Wikipedia, is historical. That's what an encyclopedia is. Descending order makes no sense, nor does labeling it historic. I want you to add as much information as you please, because that's a great way to contribute to Wikipedia. But when you leave messages on user pages, please use "~~~~."—GoldRingChip 13:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Committee refs

The THOMAS links are not "better" or even "other" refs. The Congressional Record cites, which is what we've always used, give us the text and fact of passage of the resolutions all in one place. Also, S. Res. 17 backs up less than what was already there as it only elected one party's committee members. -Rrius (talk) 02:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Edits

While it is true that you are a headache, I can assure you that I have no intent of backing down to your immature behavior. Vandalizing pages and reverting back to outdated information simply to appease (and only to maintain your chronological election information from 20 years ago) your ego isn't going to work. While it does slow down my ability to update (as in updating outdated information from 13 years ago), while also importing additional information to the pages, I will simply revert back to a cleaner informative page, unlike the lack of contribution you have been providing. When I list "Recent Elections" I can assure you that I do not mean an election in 1983. While you think an election in 1983 is more important that one in 2012, I can assure you that only you think such is important and therefore should be listed first. Reverse chronological order is always used in discussing elections. Only you think otherwise. There is also a concept called "consistency." What this means is that if you're going to report an election in one year for one district, then you should do it for all districts (a concept which you have not adhered to). Your contributions, mostly cut and paste, along with your opinion in between, have been largely mediocre. In the meantime, get over the fact that updating congressional districts is NOT reserved solely to yourself. Additionally, if you need to find a hobby, then may I suggest Craigslist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ANTONI20 (talk • contribs) 08:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Your insults and bullying are inappropriate for Wikipedia. Please take them somewhere else where they might be better appreciated. —GoldRingChip 22:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Problem with User:ANTONI20

Please be aware that User:ANTONI20 has been making regular changes to many congressional district articles without regard for previous content. He/she is acting inappropriately and has been warned. You, and perhaps others, may need to help police the pages he/she edits. I'm sorry to bother you with this seemingly petty problem.—GoldRingChip 22:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Recommend you report him/her at ANI, accompanied by diffs of his/her actions. GoodDay (talk) 22:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

CT 1 Update

I have made changes to the page, yet I preserved the past election results that you had wanted (in ascending order). However, I have a separate link for the four most recent elections (in descending order). The House Clerk, Secretary of States, and media all publish election information in descending order (it is the norm). However, as a compromise, I have left the four most recent in descending and the 8 previous elections in ascending order. Look at the most recent page update and if you have any issues then discuss it with me and let's try to rectify any disagreement correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ANTONI20 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

  • They need to be in chronological order. This is not your, or my, website. Any compromise isn't between you and me, there are rules to Wikipedia.—GoldRingChip 22:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Reverts

The election results do not need to be in chronological order. That is your rule and to behave the way you do in regards to it is absurb. Second, when you do complain regarding the updates and revisions I have done to another administrator, you may want to advise them of the broken links and outdated information that exist throughout the page reverts edited by you. At this point our argument has nothing to do with content and merely to do with format. Therefore, your argument is mute. You are NOT the sole editor for congressional districts (even though you have taken on that role). If you want to have any credibility going forward you may want to actually updates the pages with current information that readers would be interested in, rather than asserting your opinion with a cut and paste in between.

You need to learn to sign your posts. You need to learn how Wikipedia operates. If you want any credibility going forward, you need to learn that if you make a change and it is challenged, it is your job to gain consensus for it. You are right that GoldRingChip is not the sole editor of those articles. They have been edited by numerous editors over several years, and the current versions reflect the current consensus and therefore are entitled to stay put until consensus changes. This is especially true since it isn't just one article; there are hundreds of these articles, and they should be kept uniform barring any compelling reason for a particular one to be different. So if you think your version has merit, explain what you are trying to do and why it is an improvement. I would recommend Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress as a place to discuss your proposals. -Rrius (talk) 04:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to further echo GoldRingChip's and Rrius's arguments. Many changes have been thouroughly discussed among many members of a particular wikiproject and are not simply one writers preferences. I believe we all welcome your participation, but if your text is challenged, then you need to get consensus. Many if not all of us have been challenged in the past. If you plan on continuing, I'd also suggest you create a user page for yourself where wiki editors can leave comments. It's a great way to communicate as we are doing here......Pvmoutside (talk) 15:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Template:Category elections by year

Hi GoldRingChip. I think you should consider moving the template to a title that clearly indicates that it only works for elections in US states. Cheers, Pichpich (talk) 17:32, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Yes, I'd been thinking the same thing. I'll do it soon.—GoldRingChip 19:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Done—GoldRingChip 19:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
That was fast. Thanks, Pichpich (talk) 19:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Private law confusion between 112th and 113th Congresses

Acts of the 113th United States Congress#Private laws says that Private Law 113-1 was enacted December 28, 2012, even though that was during the 112th Congress. Acts of the 112th United States Congress#Private laws lists the same law as Private Law 112-1. Do you have any insight on which Congress it should be listed under? Harej (talk) 14:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

  • It was the 112th. I've made the correction. Thanks!—GoldRingChip 01:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Cheers! Harej (talk) 06:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

New U.S. legislative data project

Hi there, GoldRingChip! I'm working with a group of Wikipedians on a Legislative Data Workshop to explore ways of using legislative data to enhance Wikipedia, and since it's a subject area you've been active with, I figured you might like to know of it. We've set up a provisional WikiProject at Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Federal Government Legislative Data (WP:LEGDATA) where we're developing new ideas, so if you'd like to offer your views or help out, we'd love to have you join! Cheers, WWB (talk) 18:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

  • OK, I'm in.—GoldRingChip 01:01, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Hi, GRC. You've done an impressive amount of work over years on various aspects of elections and legislation. I'd like to introduce myself and compare notes on things. Could we be in touch by email? (If you're in the D.C. area, perhaps lunch?) jharper at cato dot org JimHarperDC (talk) 18:53, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Template:Category elections by year (again)

Re the template for U.S. state elections by year, this works OK for Georgia back to 1814, but not for 1789, 1792, 1794 & 1796. These years have US Senate elections with the Georgia one a redirect to the main article. But for these years it creates “Georgia elections by year” and “Years in Georgia…” instead of “Georgia (U.S. state) elections …”and “Years in Georgia (U.S. state) etc. See Category:United States Senate elections in Georgia. Hugo999 (talk) 21:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Sorry the problem was that the category on the redirect for the US Senate elections in Georgia to the main article had not been amended to 18xx in Georgia (U.S. state), the template works fine. Hugo999 (talk) 21:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
    • So we're all set, right?—GoldRingChip 00:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, GoldRingChip. You have new messages at Bluerasberry's talk page.
Message added 15:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Bill numbers in titles

Hi! I'm one of the editors working on the WikiProject on legislative data. I noticed that you removed the bill numbers from the titles of several articles. We were including those bill numbers because some people will look them up that way (we think). If the bill number is removed from the title, will the Wikipedia search feature still find it easily? Many bills also have the same *name*, but different bill *numbers*, so including the number helps with distinguishing bills as well. Other bills won't have the year in the title, so that's another thing to consider. I would love to see a standard way of naming these bills, however. I'll put a comment on the project talk page as well, but I would like your thoughts on why you have been changing the names - from my perspective, it seems like helpful disambiguation information is being removed. Thanks! HistoricMN44 (talk) 20:43, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Sandy

Thanks for removing that spam fluff that was added to that reference. I hadn't noticed that "Time" attached that bit when I copied the URL. Cheers, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 18:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC) Oh and why did you remove the infobox? FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 18:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Removed the infobox by mistake. Keep up the good work.—GoldRingChip 19:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Your recent changes to Usc-title-chap

Your recent changes to Usc-title-chap have caused a problem in Title 18 of the United States Code, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Title_18_of_the_United_States_Code&oldid=535088464 67.100.127.157 (talk) 20:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Thank you, O anonymous user. I will try to fix it!—GoldRingChip 23:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick fix. 67.100.127.157 (talk) 02:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

List of special elections to the United States Senate

That same IP editor keeps breaking the table, adding incorrect information, and removing correct information. The editor has also failed to take on board you suggestions and mine to use a sandbox or ask for help, or even to respond. When does it become proper to simply semi-protect the article? -Rrius (talk) 21:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Done. I put a 1-month block on unregistered users, but allowed him/her to submit pending changes.—GoldRingChip 21:25, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

US Senate election in Massachusetts, 2012

Why would you change the candidate's sides in the infobox because alphabetical order? The winning candidate always goes on the left. --yeah_93 (talk) 01:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure why one order here is better than another. Has there been a discussion somewhere which you can reference just so we don't have to rehash this?—GoldRingChip 13:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
It's not that there has been a discussion about it; it's just that every article that covers election has the winner on the left side. Wouldn't it be confusing for someone who was reading articles of elections here when he sees one where the winner's position is inverted? --yeah_93 (talk) 19:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
I suppose. Do you think we could develop a consensus discussion to that effect?—GoldRingChip 14:43, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
I really don't know if a consensus has been reached before, but if not; maybe it's just non-spoken rule. As I said every election article I've seen is already like that. --yeah_93 (talk) 15:00, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
If it's a good idea, then I'm fine with it. But if not, I suggest we consider changing it. I generally dislike infoboxes because they tend to reduce a complex issue into trivia and very often the infoboxes become fights over order, inclusion and other minutiae. Having said that, I think a rule that the incumbent party be listed first, where there is no incumbent candidate, is wrong and should be changed. Especially where there are three candidates and no way to determine the order of the candidates who are not from the incumbent party.—GoldRingChip 21:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Water Resources Development Act may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave my operator a message on his talk page. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:20, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Thank you, disembodied robot. I've fixed it. Good bot!—GoldRingChip 17:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Congressional districts

If they weren't in chronological order then why don't you fix them instead of removing all the hard work I put into that? It's just common courtesy. I added information from previous Presidential races that wasn't previously there.

  • I'm sorry, I didn't see the information you added. In my first few reverts, there had only been info removed. In all cases they were in reverse order, but I thought there wasn't any information removed. Sorry.—GoldRingChip 16:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I'll arrange them in the correct order from now on. My apologies. Thismightbezach (talk) 19:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

List of United States Senators from Massachusetts

Just wanted to drop a note to tell you I really like what you did here. The new arrangement is useful for understanding the history of the state's representation. One suggestion I'd make, though, is to force the fourth and eighth columns to be narrower. --Coemgenus (talk) 10:03, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Article Titles

Hi! Saw your little notes complaining about renaming titles. The answer is that you do not still have to do it - no one is making you. If you are sick of it, just stop. There was never established a consensus on what the article names should be. You believe they should be one way, I and several others believe they should be another way. Until such time as there is a solid consensus, I'm going to continue naming the articles in the more exact format - this doesn't hurt anyone to do it that way. So, sorry if it's annoying, but it's also unnecessary. I am wildly curious about your strong interest in Congress and American political history. Do you work in this field, or is it a hobby, or... ? Thanks. HistoricMN44 (talk) 14:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

  • OK, good point. Just because it's been done in the past doesn't mean there's a consensus. I'll leave it alone.—GoldRingChip 14:23, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Massachusetts gubernatorial election, 2014

Please stop edit warring at Massachusetts gubernatorial election, 2014. If you disagree with the column widths, please take it to the talk page where I have already left two messages, don't just undo the edits without providing an explanation. Thanks. Tiller54 (talk) 12:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

  • OK. Will discuss on talk page.—GoldRingChip 13:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

19th Century elections: party leaders

I will be honest, in many cases those are probably not the party "leaders". I tried to look for such information, but in more than a few cases such information was not available. If the info wasn't present, than I believe I looked first at seniority of those within that party, and an accompanying photograph. Unfortunately it was some time ago when I did those. I do remember though that Allen lead the Populists in the Senate during his tenure, and Teller the Silver Republicans before he left to join the Democratic Party, but whatever sources I had are now unfortunately lost, no longer within My Documents. --Ariostos (talk) 17:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, GoldRingChip. You have new messages at Rrius's talk page.
Message added Rrius (talk) 01:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

111th United States Congress

You seem to know your way away around images; do you know how to prevent the 'contents' subsection for the House of Representatives from showing up in the article's contents page? It makes it look messy and seems unnecessary but I can't figure out how to format it? Thanks Sb101 (talk|contribs) 07:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Just so I know what you're asking: do you mean the table of contents that's just called "Contents," which is below the lede and above the first section, "Major events"?—GoldRingChip 12:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm referring to Section 9 in the Contents (also named 'contents), appearing under '8.2 House of Representatives.' I'm pretty sure that '9 Contents' and its subsections should not be appearing in the main Contents panel (after looking at section 8.2) but can't work out what to do to achieve that? Sb101 (talk|contribs) 04:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I see what you mean. Fixed. It was caused by the template, {{TOC US states 2}}, which I just tweaked to fix it.—GoldRingChip 14:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Excellent! Thanks for sorting this out. =) Sb101 (talk|contribs) 13:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Alas, my "fix" caused a new problem, see the next section, ToC header problem, below. Luckily, that user fixed the problem.—GoldRingChip 18:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oh. Well then, thank goodness for wiki-collaboration! Sb101 (talk|contribs) 05:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

ToC header problem

Hi GoldRingChip. Where did you see this problem ? The template is used in combination with NOTOC and to build a custom ToC. In normal situations, Contents should not show up in a ToC that way. And using <h2> improves accessibility for users who require screenreaders etc. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Interesting problem. It looks like you solved it. I'm sorry that my solution to Problem A only opened up Problem B.—GoldRingChip 18:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
    • OK, I have now made it possible {{TOC top}} to identify itself as the primary ToC. Templates using TOC top can pass this flag to indicate this desire. Additionally, remember that it is possible to change the title when using {{TOC top}} usage to be something more 'appropriate' for the situation. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

U.S. Senators from New Jersey

Please do not include Cory Booker on the list of U.S. Senators from New Jersey until the New Jersey Secretary of State announces it as official and is sworn I to office in Washington. Until then he is just a Senator-Elect and is not yet entitled to be included in the article. Thank you for your cooperation. 216.53.168.61 (talk) 21:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

United States congressional delegations from Utah

This is am FL list. Stop removing things that got it there. Don't remove entire section without consensus. Bgwhite (talk) 18:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Date conversion script request

Hi, I saw you run the date conversion script on the Jill Biden article. Could you also run it on the Ann Romney article? That one has long had a mishmash of iso dates and mdy dates, all of which should be mdy. Thanks ... Wasted Time R (talk) 11:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Years

I prefer the YYYY–YYYY format for date ranges, but MOS:YEAR has YYYY–YY as the guideline. Just pointing that out. —Designate (talk) 23:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

table coding

My table coding skills are rudimentary (e.g. List of newspapers in Massachusetts). Don't know how to make boxes in the table span across or down, as would be needed to represent localities in MA-8 over time. It seems complicated. Willing to learn if necessary. M2545 (talk) 20:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

December 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 73rd United States Congress may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • * March 24, 1934: The [[Tydings–McDuffie Act]] ({{USPL|73|127}}, {{USStat|48|456}} provided for self-government for the [[Commonwealth of the

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

United States Senate election in New York, 1952

The article is about the state election. The U.S. senate seat was, by chance, the only statewide elective office that year, but the article mentions Assembly and Senate also. Under the circumstances, United States Senate election in New York, 1952 should be a redirect to New York state election, 1952. Kraxler (talk) 20:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Template change

Hi, can you revisit the change that you made to {{Infobox election}} as it is producing strange results such as in United Kingdom local elections, 2007 where it covers the width of the page. Thanks. Keith D (talk) 23:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Temporarily fixed. Timeshift (talk) 23:34, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but i've had to undo your edit as it broke (distorted) the infobox on [Next Australian federal election]]... the polling figures got moved in to a second column, expanding the infobox twice the size. I've undone your edit, please feel free to check it and fix as appropriate. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 23:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Purpose of list articles/non list articles/Wikipedia space pages

Non list articles (like United States Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs) are not designed to be used for retaining historical tidbits or other miscellaneous pieces of information (like for example in the articles on subunits of parts of any government anywhere in the world people who no longer serve in/on them as deemed appropriate based on the nature of what that particular subunit of a government does). --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 00:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GoldRingChip/Archives/2013&oldid=1066263544"