User talk:Chicago1997

Irish Americans
Hi Chicago1997 - You've been altering the numbers of Irish Americans at the start of the article. I'd be willing to discuss your reasons for doing this, but I want to make sure you understand how references work. If you change the numbers, you have to provide a different reference. The numbers I'm restoring are in fact what is published by the Census Bureau. There is a section on the talk page of the article to discuss your viewpoint. Thanks. --Ken Gallager (talk) 13:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for providing a reference for the higher numbers you would like to show. I've reverted it for two reasons. First, the article is a year old. While they don't actually state what Census data they're using, it can be no more recent than the 2012 ACS data. Better to use the 2013 data that I've been putting up. Second, I believe you're double-counting Scotch-Irish. The Irish Times reference counts both for their 39 million figure, but please notice that the Wikipedia article then goes and counts the Scotch-Irish again. Your edits have been making it look like the 39 million are for Irish only, rather than Irish and Scotch-Irish. One other note: please look at how references are done in the article, with the proper html tagging. So far, each time you've changed the numbers, you've left my old references in, so anybody wishing to check your numbers will find my numbers linked instead. Best wishes, --Ken Gallager (talk) 19:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't have time at the moment to look at your latest edit, but here's the link to the numbers I'm putting up: If you go down to nearly the bottom of the page, you'll see the section about Ancestry. You'll find the numbers there for Irish and Scotch-Irish. Here's a tip: in the article, there's a footnote after the number. If you click on the footnote, it will take you to the bottom of the page, where it will highlight the same link for you. --Ken Gallager (talk) 02:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I looked at the source, and the number was correct, but it stated the percentage as 10.5% rather than the 9.6%. Thanks for giving me the source. --Chicago1997

I've been reverting your infobox changes, because it's breaking the article format. Am I correct in assuming you're trying to add more photos to the infobox? If so, please go to the article history and look at older versions of the article. Back at my first edit a week or so ago, there were 16 photos rather than the current nine. Take a look at how that was done so that the infobox stays on the right side of the page and the article text continues to show at the top of the article. Thanks, --Ken Gallager (talk) 20:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi - Thanks for getting back to me. I think what's happening is that User:Emperorofthedaleks wants to reduce the number of people in the infobox, while you want to increase them. If you're having troubles preserving the structure of the infobox, you can always go back to an earlier edit where the infobox has more people and displays properly. For example, here's the version from Dec. 20.


 * Why not start with that? I think it will be best if you stick with that number for now. If you'd like to add more photos, I recommend you discuss it on the talk page. Best wishes, --Ken Gallager (talk) 13:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and fixed the top of the page so the photos were back in their infobox. Should be okay now. (until someone else decides they want different people in the box!) --Ken Gallager (talk) 13:22, 24 December 2014 (UTC)