User talk:101090ABC

United States Secretary of Defense
STOP adding Obama until January 20. 2009!  C T J F 8 3 Talk 21:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The same has been done, I believe, to other secretaries. See for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_of_Homeland_Security .ABC101090 (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So, that doesn't make it right. I'd delete all those too.  C T J F 8 3 Talk 06:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That´s what you would do, but clearly nobody else thinks likewise, or otherwise someboduý would have deleted them already. ABC101090 (talk) 09:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

2010 United States States Census
Please note that the table at the above article notes the number of congressional districts, not electoral votes. -Rrius (talk) 01:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * My bad.ABC101090 (talk) 05:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries. -Rrius (talk) 08:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk pages
You need to contribute something here. Negotiating in edit summaries doesn't work.--chaser - t 17:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

111th United States Congress
You seem to misunderstand my edit summary at 111th United States Congress. I meant that it is debatable whether the gap in Illinois's representation should be listed as a change in membership. It is not debatable that there was a change in Delaware's membership. The changes in membership section is not about expected changes, but about actual changes that have happened and the changes we expect are going to happen. -Rrius (talk) 19:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * ? - ABC101090 (talk) 20:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The list is about changes in membership throughout the Congress, not just upcoming ones. Therefore, Delaware's change is certainly supposed to be there: Biden was the senator, now Kaufman is. Illinois is debatable because Burris was always the senator regardless of whether he took the oath. If the Senate had voted to exclude him, it would have voided the appointment retroactive to the date he was appointed. If you have an issue with not including Illinois, fine, but Delaware undeniably belongs on the list. -Rrius (talk) 20:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Saxbe fix
Can you add a citation to the Ken Salazar Saxbe fix information that you added. Also, do you have any further information similar to the information included on Clinton's fix, such as the exact amount? Do you have any information on debate on the propriety of the fix?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I found some info.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

What's the use of the cabinet template, anyway?
Your revert made me think: What's the use of Current U.S. Cabinet, anyway? I can't think of any situation in which it would not be redundant with the current "cabinet" template. Should we prod it? &mdash; Sebastian 00:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * First could you explain what "prod" means. If it means delete, I agree.ABC101090 (talk) 00:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Pardon me for speaking in abbreviations. Yes, it means adding one of the Category:Prod-related templates (in this case tprod) on the page and discussing it in the correct forum, in this case WP:TFD. &mdash; Sebastian 01:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The point, is self-explanatory and if you can't see that I'm not sure what will. Template:Current U.S. Cabinet is not tied to the Obama templates at all. You must realise that Obama's cabinet will not all stay all eight years, this is the point of the Template:Obama Cabinet. I'm not bloody repeating myself, so read this before you indiscriminately pass disingenuous judgment. Therequiembellishere (talk) 00:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * But if the cabinet members are to change, then of course they can be added to, with the dates. Then it is clear to everyone who is in office now. I believe  is unnecessary because of this. ABC101090 (talk) 00:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * But then the reader has to fish for the incumbent! I--will--repeat Template:Current U.S. Cabinet is not related to the Obama templates. You are the sole revert and you will be reported. So, reflexively, PLEASE could you stop removing Template:Current U.S. cabinet from the Secretary pages. It is not useless. The same thing cannot be said with Template:Obama cabinet. Please. Thank you. Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And I will say: can be used to portray all of the secretaries of a president by adding the years a secretary was in office. Let me iillustrate:


 * And another one: Clinton cabinet ABC101090 (talk) 01:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Bloody hell, that's fantastic. You've brilliantly illustrated that the other templates don't show the current cabinet, but the administration's cabinet members. I helped create those templates as they are, I know what they can and can't be used for. I don't own them but I know what I certainly know talking about so don't patronise me. Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * My point is that the Obama cabinet-template can be used in the same way. The dates obviously tell who is the current/latest secretary. You are really beginning to annoy me and i am considerring of complaining about you to someone. ABC101090 (talk) 01:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to wikiFeed
Hello 101090ABC,

I'm part of a team that is researching ways to help Wikipedia editors find interesting content to contribute to Wikipedia. More specifically, we are investigating whether content from news sources can be used to enhance Wikipedia editing. We have created a tool, called wikiFeed, that allows you to specify Twitter and/or RSS feeds from news sources that are interesting to you. wikiFeed then helps you make connections between those feeds and Wikipedia articles. We believe that using this tool may be a lot of fun, and may help you come up with some ideas on how to contribute to Wikipedia in ways that interest you. Please participate! To do so, complete this survey and follow this link to our website. Once you're there, click the "create an account" link to get started.

For more information about wikiFeed, visit our project page. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask via my talk page, or by email at wikifeedcc@gmail.com. We appreciate your time and hope you enjoy playing with wikiFeed!

Thanks! WorldsApart (talk) 21:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Rory Williams
Sorry, I assumed your edit about 1938 was more nonsense like your previous edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doctor_Who_%28series_7%29&diff=prev&oldid=505726633 Ratemonth (talk) 16:56, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That edit was only meant to correct a mistake made by a previous user, i.e. to point the link into the correct article - "The Cold War" linking to the article about the political climate of 1947-1989, whereas what was meant was the Doctor Who episode possibly called "The Cold War". I wasn't making a statement about whether the title was correct, just wanting to point the link to the right way. As I said, I didn't put the episode title there and was just fixing a link. Therefore my previous edit can't be considered nonsense. 101090ABC (talk) 17:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
G S Palmer (talk) 20:30, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
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) 13:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cathedral of St. Matthew the Apostle (Washington, D.C.), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kevin McCarthy. 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) 06:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 2022 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)