User talk:Dcmacnut/Archive3

Talk:Ohio's 11th congressional district special election, 2008
You are invited to contibute to the deletion discussion on this page.--Dr who1975 (talk) 18:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Census blocks
I think it would be a little much to say "____ had a population of __ at the 2000 census" and source it simply with a reference to the census block, but to say "Census Block ____, which includes _____, had a population of ___ at the 2000 census" with that reference would be altogether reasonable. This is somewhat similar to using ZCTAs for population reference, although a little more specific but a little more difficult to do — but I think it's a great idea. Nyttend (talk) 19:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Rock Township
Yeah, I have a book on Rock Township that I'll cite here in a bit. Thanks. TRBUFF (talk) 23:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Notability RFC
No, I don't generally follow these discussions; I've only now gotten your message, as my Internet has been down almost all the time in the last couple of days, and I've only had time to keep up with my watchlist and revert miscellanous vandalism. Where do you read that this is a potential threat to little communities etc.? I don't possibly have time to read everything (not trying to complain; sorry if it sounds that way) of this RFC, so I'm just curious where you got this; searching for "census" and "atlas", the only place where I found people opposing our current place notability standards are those who are supporting measures that currently appear to have a significant majority in opposition. Nyttend (talk) 05:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

S. Michael
Thanks for working to correct the St/Saint Michael article, but please remember (if you don't already remember this) that you shouldn't do a cut-and-paste move; you simply should have moved St. Michael, North Dakota to Saint Michael, North Dakota. Nyttend (talk) 21:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, for one thing you could just ask me :-) As it was, you could have moved it: you can move an article over a redirect at any time, as long as the redirect has no history except that of being created as a redirect.  For example, if you discovered that Spurlockville, West Virginia was more properly named Spurlocksville, West Virginia, you wouldn't need any help moving it to that title.  If you want to move a page to an already-created target that you can't move it to, please don't copy/paste; instead, place a notice at Requested moves.  Nyttend (talk) 22:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I see that you've moved some of your subpages back and forth; do you have any more questions? Nyttend (talk) 22:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I really need to learn not to edit when I'm tired
I know and agree; I've sometimes found myself doing exactly that, or worse. I've even fallen asleep during Windows pinball, which frankly doesn't help my score that much :-) Nyttend (talk) 04:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Question about citing a source for a township
You recently contacted me about my artice, Rock Township, Benson County, North Dakota, asking me to cite my sources. My source was a locally published Rock Township History Book with no visible citation. So I searched the web and found on this site- showing a reference to the book under the section "Benson County". Could you please help using your expertise and proximity to the state library? Thank you.TRBUFF (talk) 18:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Views on abortion
Got a RV. Try to re-edit this. We know that his conflict with Bishop Parsons is on public record. 

''In 2001, he had a public disagreement with Roman Catholic bishop Robert Carlson over public funding for abortion ; the bishop publicly scolded him over his stance, which overtly supports partial-birth abortion and also extends to post-partum infanticide. Weekly standard'' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.239.212 (talk) 15:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Elections in Louisiana
Hi! I worked a little on United States Senate election in Louisiana, 2008 and I updated the box Template:ElectionsLA. I noticed however, that the box was updated in the article I worked on but not for example in Elections in Louisiana. Do you have an idea why that is? I thought changing a box on the template page would affect all the articles in which the box is placed. Hekerui (talk) 23:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * When I go to Elections in Louisiana the box shows me only the 2008 senate election, not the other two. Is that different for you? Hekerui (talk) 10:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Indian reservations
I'm not suggesting that the reservations are subordinate to counties; but surely they're within counties. Except for independent cities and the Unorganized Borough in Alaska, everywhere in the 50 states is within a county. As far as the subsets, related to New York: consider the Passamaquoddy Reservation in northern Franklin County and western Somerset County in northern Maine, near the Canadian border — they're not treated separately by the Census Bureau, and nor is the Bad River Reservation in northern Ashland County, Wisconsin. Therefore, I'm convinced that the Census Bureau's special treatment of these New York reservations is unique: in a way, they are Census-designated somewhat. Nyttend (talk) 00:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Good job in finding references for my two sample reservations: I didn't even bother looking for them at the Factfinder, as I assumed that there wasn't anything available there :-) Thanks for explaining what you meant; misunderstanding your original meaning, I was indeed surprised at what I thought you said.  By the way, are you familiar with the map series that I noted in my comment on Freechild's talk page?  They're found at this Census Bureau directory.  You can get the Wisconsin one, for example, here, where by the way you can see the Menominee County is entirely a reservation: I believe that this is unique among states east of the Mississippi, although I could be wrong.  Nyttend (talk) 02:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Speculation
Please see the discussion at Talk:United States House of Representatives special elections in Illinois, 2009.—Markles 16:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Office space
Of the people I cross paths with on Wikipedia, you are the most likely to know the answer to a question I have regarding office space and the Minnesota's Senate race. If Coleman had the clear winner in November, he would have been entitled to slightly more prestigious space than he has now. If Franken had been the clear winner, he would have been entitled to less desirable space than Coleman has. I'm guessing that in a normal year, when all races have been long settled by now, office space and floor seating is allotted by this point in the calendar. How will they handle the delay should this drag in past the normal moving days? (When do they shuffle offices, by the way?) Do they assume Coleman will win and push everyone else up if Franken wins? Will the do the opposite? Will they put new senators in their predecessors' offices until the thing is settled, and then move everyone who needs to move? It is an exceedingly unimportant point, yet I am strangely curious about the answer. I hope you can help. -Rrius (talk) 10:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool. I realized it was based on seniority, which is why it seemed potentially tricky. I didn't realize it took them so long to move in, so that makes it more likely than I thought that they'll just wait until they know who is going to be certified (that should happen soon, so I imagine the Minn. senator will be seated on Jan. 6 without prejudice). -Rrius (talk) 02:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Aerial pictures
You've researched well to prove the PD nature of the pictures :-) Your description is accurate (check Google Maps, you'll see that it's the right place), and I think the possibility of using this website to get pictures of communities is a great idea.  Nyttend (talk) 17:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of United States Senate special election in Illinois, 2009
An article that you have been involved in editing, United States Senate special election in Illinois, 2009, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/United States Senate special election in Illinois, 2009. Thank you. —Markles 14:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Seniority in the 111th
I've asked a question you might be able to answer at the 111th seniority list talk page. Specifically, the question is, if someone like Franken presents himself late for the oath, but the delay is not his fault, is his seniority back dated to the same day as the rest of the freshman class? Is there even a rule for this? If you don't know, do you have any connections that would help? -Rrius (talk) 00:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Project Congress
As a participant of WikiProject U.S. Congress, please consider placing Project Congress to do to the top of your User_talk page. Thank you.—Markles 01:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Perth Township, ND
In response to your query. I'm obviously ignorant about civil governance in ND and I'm not the arbiter for the project - just an ordinary trouble-maker. Probably best if you look at the project scope yourself and make a judgement - although you could obtain a consensus via the project's talk page. Personally, I think the project's too broad, so Perth Township is likely to be within scope. Welcome aboard! Folks at 137 (talk) 23:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Vice President of the United States
Wondering if you might know of or can point me at where to find all the formal extra-constitutional duties of the Veep (e.g., he sits on the National Security Counsel by law, even though it's not provided by the Const.). Thanks. Foofighter20x (talk) 00:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Biden and the Senate
Thanks for reverting my edit, I wanted to revert it because I misread this blog entry from Glenn Thrush. Cassandro (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A little off question: how can I join the US Congress Wikiproject? I'm really interested in the Senate and the campaigns, maybe I can help a little bit. I know, some kind of unusual for a guy from Hungary. Cassandro (talk) 20:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you keep an eye on Seniority in the United States Senate? I have already reverted Cassandro and a more insistent editor a total of three times, and I don't want to violate 3RR. -Rrius (talk) 20:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

(After edit conflict:) I added myself to the Project, I hope I can help expand it not just in quantity. :-) Maybe someone shall write Glenn that his post is not correct/exact. As I look, someone else misread it too. Cassandro (talk) 20:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Bioguide notes Biden as sitting senator. Someone should write them that's not the case since Jan 15. :-) (Quite funny because they note Kaufman also as senator...). When do the new committee assignments get valid? I would like to actualise them. Cassandro (talk) 22:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, now I see it, the confusion came because the page states Senate Years of Service: 1973-. Cassandro (talk) 23:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk:110th United States Congress
Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at. Thank you. —Markles 15:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * DC, I'm confused. The Burris page at CongBio says he was appointed December 30, 2008, which is inaccurate, and took the oath January 15, 2009. The Kaufman page says he was appointed January 15, 2009, and took the oath January 16, 2009. In your contribution at the above talk page, you suggested that an appointment doesn't take effect until the oath is taken (except during a sine die adjournment. At the Seniority article, you suggested Kaufman's seniority date is January 15 based on the CongBio. What gives? -Rrius (talk) 18:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Good points by Rrius. My question to this: is Sen. Burris the before the freshman class of 2009 in the Senate seniority list and does the Pell-case have any effect on this? Cassandro (talk) 23:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Pell applies to elected senators who get an early appointment (through resignation of their predecessor, like Graham/Cornyn), rather than appointed Senators. A read of the law seems to indicate Burris goes back to Dec. 31, ahead of all freshmen. However, absent a definitive reliable source on our part, it is speculation on our part.DCmacnut &lt; &gt; 23:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for my questioning
...but there are some things which I'm confused of and before I get really started in the WikiProject, I want to see clearly in those cases. E. g. if X gets elected in Delaware 2010 (let's presume Kaufman does not stand for election) then X can take the oath of office BEFORE the beginning of the 112th Congress (if I'm understanding the Carnahan-Talent case right or is it a special case because the appointment was necessary cause the elected senator died before taking his seat)? Other question: is there any timeline in which a service is considered broken (like in the case of Frank Lautenberg)? This could be interesting if Coleman gets through the courts (unlikely but possible). Cassandro (talk) 23:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The 2010 Delaware and New York races will be special elections. Whomever wins those races is able to take office shortly after the election is certified. Per the 17th Amendment, appointments last until an election chooses a successor. Often times, an appointed senator runs to finish the full term, and wins (Zell Miller), so it isn't an issue most of the time. The Illinois and Colorado 2010 elections will be general elections, not special elections, since Obama and Salazar would have had to stand for reelection that year normally. Whomever wins those races would take office until January 3, 2011, since those appointments last for the rest of the senate term.


 * There is precedent for a senator who wins a special election to delay taking the oath of office. Kent Conrad was elected in a special election Dec. 4, 1992, to succeed Quentin Burdick, and took office Dec. 14, 1992. There is also the case of Rebecca Felton who was senator for just one day. She had been appointed by Georgia's governor in an effort to woo women votes as he was running in the special election that fall. Since Congress wasn't in session, he banked that she would never get to take office. However, the governor lost that special election, and when Congress reconvened the winner waited one extra day to take his seat so Felton could claim to be the first woman senator.
 * Then there's Huey Long, who delayed taking office for 2 years while he finished his term as governor. Jay Rockefeller did the same thing, but only for a couple of weeks (since they held another elected office, they were disqualified from being senators until the terms ended, so their terms started upon taking the oath. Also, Rush D. Holt, didn't turn the minimum age of 30 until 6 months after being elected, so he waited until he qualified to take the office. The constitution only says you have to be 30 to take office, not 30 to be elected. Biden was 29 when elected in 1972. Here ends the history lesson.DCmacnut &lt; &gt; 03:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There will be two elections in Illinois and Colorado: general elections for the terms beginning January 3, 2011, and special elections for the terms ending that day. The Senate has ruled that you can not have a single election for both, you must have separate ballot entries. They consider it to be an illegal and unconstitutional attempt to elect a senator for a term longer than six years. In any event, Illinois and Colorado law both provide that a special election occur at the next general election after the appointment, and neither makes an exception for cases, such as these, where the person will only fill a two month vacancy. Illinois Election Code § 25-8 (10 ILCS 5/25-8) and Colorado Revised Statutes § 1-12-201 (no direct link, but available here).
 * I think the reporters out there just have no idea there could be special elections. -Rrius (talk) 20:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Color/Colour
Do redirects of templates break? If not, there shouldn't be a problem.

SteveSims (talk) 19:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Fascinating response
As I said I would, I e-mailed the Senate Historian about the Wicker appointment/oath issue. I received a surprising response: Prior to being sworn in on the Senate floor, Senator Wicker to the oath in Mississippi (see attached news articles). This was done primarily so that he could get a jump start in organizing his Senate offices prior to the start of the new congressional session. Mary Baumann U.S. Senate Historical Office I found this surprising given : "The oath of office shall be administered by the President of the Senate to each Senator who shall be elected, previous to his taking his seat." -Rrius (talk) 22:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Typical for the Senate, not really consistent... Cassandro (talk) 22:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Gillibrand resigned when?
Kirsten Gillibrand wrote two letters of resignation, as is normal. . One she wrote to the New York Secretary of State resigning effective January 23; the other she wrote to the Speaker resigning effective January 25. The floor summary on the Clerk's site says January 26, so we should probably go with that, but lordy do these people make things difficult. -Rrius (talk) 14:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right its difficult. Patterson's certificate of appointment is January 23, per, and that's the date she submitted her resignation to the state of New York. However, pursuant to House and Senate rules, letters of resignation have to be submitted to the Speaker/President of the Senate respectively. Until that notice of resignation is received, the resignation isn't valid in my understanding.
 * So it remains what date did Gillibrand become a Senator? I would go with January 26. She cannot be a Representative and a Senator simultaneously, and became a Senator upon her resignation from the House. Since her appointment date was effective January 23, she became a Senator the moment she qualified, which occurred upon her resignation from the House. It's a similar situation to Rush D. Holt, Sr. He became a senator the moment he turned 30 years old, even though he was elected 6 months previously (and apparently, he also received a salary as a senator for those 6 months, even though he was not a sitting senator). We are just going to have to wait until the Secretary of the Senate updates that List of Senators document. It goes to prove my initial argument that the Senate is an island unto itsself, and is the finally arbiter of maybe not when a senators term begins, but rather the date of seniority.DCmacnut &lt; &gt; 18:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Bioguide has the answer
"appointed January 23, 2009, to the United States Senate for the term ending January 3, 2013, to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of Hillary Clinton; appointment took effect upon her resignation from the House of Representatives on January 26, 2009, took the oath of office on January 27, 2009.DCmacnut &lt; &gt; 18:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

"It's always been done this way"
I don't remember that it was the same way in the case of Kaufman and Bennet. Maybe I'm wrong, I don't have the time now to look at the page history, it's 1:00 a.m. in Budapest. :-) Cassandro (talk) 00:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I took care of it. This is the diff you are probably looking for.DCmacnut &lt; &gt; 04:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's recent... ever since the Novemeber elections the page has turned into an ultra confusing mess. It wasn't done that way for John Barrasso or Roger Wicker. Maybe now that the election is over and things have calmed down somebody can simplify the page again.--Dr who1975 (talk) 01:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Burris and his term (I hope for the last time)
Seems to me that Jan 12, 2009 is the correct beginning of his term but in the Senate, you can't be sure... Cassandro (talk) 14:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that's what we've been settling on. However, his date of appointment is still December 31, and the note says nothing about the appointment taking effect on January 12, just that credentials weren't in order. As far as I know, Burris still makes the point that he was a senator from December 13. We just need to provide some sort of notation explaning the two different dates in his article.DCmacnut &lt; &gt; 14:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The January 12 date doesn't really make sense. The very link above says he was appointed on December 31. If it wanted to say his appointment had no effect until January 12, it could have said so the way it does for Gillibrand. I would also point out that the list linked to makes no claim that January 12 is the date his term started or he "assumed office"; all it says is that January 12 is the day they believe his credentials were in order. -Rrius (talk) 07:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I see. I hope the Senate will make this whole mess up... Cassandro (talk) 22:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry
I apologize for my mistake in the US Congress article. --Law Lord (talk) 04:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:USBill problems
Hi there, I noticed that none of the links generated by the template are working. I don't know if that's a problem with THOMAS, if they changed things, or the template. Would you be able to check it out? ~ Pesco  So say•we all 17:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Christopher S. 'Kit' Bond
Hello, I figured I would make his formal name on the article title. There are several articles that use real names and not nick names. So thats why I performed the edit. Terrancee (talk) 23:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

RE: renaming subcommittees
Thank you for letting me know, I'm not fully aware of the proper procedure for things like this, so any help along the way is great appreciated :) Nevermore  | Talk 01:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Unlinking dates
I like the work you've begun on the defunct congressional committees. While you're at it, you should delink the dates. See MOS:UNLINKDATES.—Markles 23:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

RE: United States House Select Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt bla bla
So you just merged Cox Committee Investigation and Reece Committee into United States House Select Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations and Comparable Organizations, claiming that the two committees are the same. They are not. See page 115 of this book. The Reece Committee was formed BECAUSE of the Cox Committee.

Furthermore, the committees came to completely different conclusions. The Cox Committee said, hey, these tax exempt companies are fiiine. Reece was like "I'm not accepting that" and formed the Reece Committee which was like "woah woah woah - these companies are no-way okay. They're communists for god's sake.". Anyway, that's my simplified version, just for emphasis. Bsimmons 666  (talk) 00:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The only source that I see is the one listed above, and that source says otherwise. I'd easily be willing to believe you because I am in no way educated on the matter, but I see no other sources.Bsimmons 666  (talk) 01:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Awesome thanks. I bet that book provides a lot of material for articles! Bsimmons 666  (talk) 01:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Subcommittee Chairs
Out of the senate subcommittee chairmanships that have come out (everything but Agriculture, Appropriations and HELP), Democrats seem to be sticking to their 2-gavel rule. The one announced change is that Aging doesn't count as a gavel (therefore allowing Herb Kohl to retain 3 gavels). Any word around the hill on the non-announced subcommittees? So far I have Conrad and Baucus inelidgable for Agriculture (Leahy will be if he doesn't give up his Appropriations Subcommittee). Dorgan, Landreau, Reed, Lautenburg, and Pryor inelidgable for Appropriations. And Dodd, Bingaman, and Reed inelidgable for HELP. Any scuttlebutt from around the hill? Dunstvangeet (talk) 07:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Just one more thing. According to my notes so far Byron Dorgan, and Herb Kohl both have 3 chairs. Herb Kohl because the Aging committee doesn't have any legislative oversight. Is the same true with the Indian Affairs? Dunstvangeet (talk) 04:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

States Rights Party
I added a discussion point regarding the Pre-Civil War States Rights Party to the Template: United States political party shading key discussion board. Let me know what you think. Pvmoutside (talk) 12:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

United States congressional apportionment
Thanks for the assess. This article is my primary project until I'm done with it. Care to comment on the talk page about item #8 in the TOC (the reorg prop)? Feel free to tweak it also, if you think something needs to be included that I've overlooked. Thanks. --Foofighter20x (talk) 02:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you ok?
Hi, I was just wondering if you are fine? There are some news flowing here to Hungary that in ND there's a serious flood threat. Cassandro (talk) 15:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Ex officio members
I considered your suggestions and again fiddled with the format of the box in United States House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts and Competition Policy. Check it out and let me know what you think. Thanks for working with me. Nevermore | Talk 04:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * While I take some umbrage with the idea that I'm "married" to it, I am quite fond of the style, haha. Thank you for helping me make it better. Nevermore  | Talk 22:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Specter questions
I have a few questions that you may be able to answer about the Specter party switch. I hope you have some answers or educated guesses. -Rrius (talk) 10:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The Senate website still lists Specter as a Republican. For example, the most recent roll call and main senators list refer to him as (R-PA). The latter could easily be an updating issue, but the former makes it seem there is more going on. So the question is, when will the Senate itself recognize his party change?
 * 2) Would Specter's desk have been moved to the Democratic side of the Chamber?
 * 3) Does the Democratic Caucus have to vote to admit him before he is officially a member? If so, would that likely happen next Tuesday? Also if so, would moving the desk have to wait for the vote?
 * 4) Do you have a guess on how long it will take to reshuffle committee assignments?

I'm not sure what the answer to any of the questions is, but Specter was listed as a Democrat on today's roll calls, and the list of senators now lists him as a Democrat as well. -Rrius (talk) 22:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Can this discussion please be moved (with discussion moved to) to Talk:111th United States Congress, where is can be more broadly viewed?—Markles 17:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The questions, at least the way I intended them, are a bit WP:Forum. I'm not sure what the questions would accomplish at 111th, but if there is something worthwhile, go ahead. I guess I can see how the last question would make sense at WP:Wikiproject U.S. Congress. -Rrius (talk) 18:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I was just thrown for a loop by the website's being behind. I understood Specter's limbo-y committee status, but I didn't know the old ratio assumed 58 to 42. Do you think Reid will wait until June (or whenever Franken is seated) to adjust majority appointments? -Rrius (talk) 01:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

New list
I've created a new list at Party switching in the United States Senate. Please take a look at it if you get a chance. -Rrius (talk) 01:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed the Fifties switch because it didn't happen while he was in office; he resigned in April as an Independent Democrat and was elected as a Democrat in November. It's a minor point, and if you want to revert me, I'll let it be. As to how he didn't make it into my list, I'm not sure. I typed the info, so I must have copied over him. (I kept cutting and pasting old rows to create new rows.) Thanks for spotting it and the template issue.


 * As for the correct shading, I don't know. I figured the Silver shading was for Free Silver party members, so I avoided it. I'll trust your judgment on what to do there. -Rrius (talk) 02:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm fine leaving Thurmond's ID > D switch out, particularly since there was an intervening appointed Senator. Thurmond resigned because he was elected as a write in, and made a promise to resign if elected and stand for reelection. I only included it for completeness sake, since the Senate has chosen to include it.DCmacnut &lt; &gt; 02:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

March 3 vs March 4 close of congress dates
I ended up asking Markles about this small issue a bit ago and he suggested I run this by you as well. Conversation attached: I was editing the List of United States Senators from Rhode Island, and noticed the termination of a regular term to 1933 was dated March 4, so I made changes to reflect the March 3rd date. Rrius reverted back to March 4th. His reasoning is found on his discussion page and linked here: User talk:Rrius. I know it is only 1 day, but can you or do you know anyone who can clarify? Feel free to respond on my discussion page. Pvmoutside (talk) 23:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I was part of the March 3/4 debate, I think it was a few years ago. User:Rrius is right that it's a jumble and that we (WP) ought to use March 4 as the beginning & end of pre 1935 terms.  Another WP expert to ask is User:Dcmacnut.—Markles 01:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * so if I'm making changes in any congress (i.e. 1st United States Congress, I'll change the dates there as well Pvmoutside (talk) 23:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)