User talk:Dcmacnut/Archive4

Confederate Districts in VA-1 eliminated
Another small issue, but I've reconstructed VA-1 a little and eliminated the confederate district reps previously listed(will do others as I move forward). Since the districts are referenced as United States districts, and the United States did not recognize the confederate districts, I'm eliminating them. Pvmoutside (talk) 14:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/56th United States Congress - summary
Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at. Thank you. —Markles 02:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Stilltim
We need certification on the RFC for Stilltim. Requests_for_comment/Stilltim Gigs (talk) 04:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Congress articles
I have done my level best, with complete sincerity, to address the concerns expressed about having this data on various accounts, etc, etc. I have almost built the 23rd United States Congress to display and will still finish it. However, it then took less than an hour for a user (Markles) to completely undo the work and restore the unattractive, confused and incomplete article proceeding. I really need some serious help by anyone that cares about getting this right because I honestly am feeling persecuted and will soon give up my efforts. stilltim (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see my reply to this claim at Requests for comment/Stilltim.—Markles 19:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Congress
I am working your comments and you can see my progress on the trial postings. However, I will let you know when finished and please don't take anything very serious until you so hear. You are asking alot and I am trying to give a genuine and valuable response. It might take a couple of days to complete. stilltim (talk) 12:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

ndash
Why do you use –, instead of typing it in or using ?—Markles 19:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Formatting proposal
Can you please review the proposed formatting policy at WikiProject U.S. Congress/Ordinal congresses?—Markles 20:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

AFDs
Recreated articles that are not substantially different from what was deleted qualify for speedy deletion. &mdash;harej (talk) 18:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Spink County townships
Thanks for fixing the template; for all I knew, the situation might have been like Kiowa County, Kansas, which only has one township. Nyttend (talk) 02:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Congress accounts

 * Please renew my few sample submissions if you want any future response or discussions in this project. stilltim (talk) 17:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

States Rights Democratic Party vs. Nullifiers
Hey, I recently added Dixiecrats to the US Party color templates. I posted my thoughts [| here] and would welcome your thoughts on how to show the various states' rights movements in the party color template. Cheers! Argos ' Dad  12:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States Senators from Delaware (alphabetic)
Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at. Thank you. —Markles 21:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC) (Using ).

Al Franken
With Al Franken joining the Senate, how do you think that'll affect committee Assignments? Here's my theory based upon nothing but speculation. Obviously HELP, with the temporary member of Sheldon Whitehouse was made temporary just to leave a committee assignment open for Franken when he took his seat. Indian affairs also has a committee opening, so does Aging. I have a gut feeling that there will be one more committee opening, as a senator will resign from the committee to make room. I actually think it'll be Ron Wyden and the Budget Committee. The only reason I think that will happen is that Jeff Merkley was appointed to the Budget Committee by the Democrats. I know he's the #3 Democrat on that committee, but both Kent Conrad and Patty Murray (who is ahead of him on that committee) will be there long enough that I don't think that he'll get the committee chairmanship. What do you think? Dunstvangeet (talk) 17:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

sorting lists for Delaware articles and others
This work looks fantastic. I will need to adjust the info a bit so it sorts right, but you have certainly got me on the same track as everyone else. Many, many thanks. I will plunge into it now and hopefully end up with our common goal. stilltim (talk) 01:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have done the cosmetic adjustments and it does everything I had hoped. What a great job and my most sincere appreciation for figuring this out. Obviously it was way beyond me. It is now installed in production and I will begin expanding it. Will you help me with like things in the future? I would like this to become a standard...and consistent standards are my main goals, but anticipate grumbling by others who didn't create it.


 * The one fix that is needed is trivial, the arrow placed beside occupation should be placed beside residence. That's what is sorting, and that is what should sort, so please don't replace the one for the other, just move it. If you can add one for occupation, go ahead, but it is not critical. I also think I can fiddle with the number to the left to allow a desireable merge of the two classes. My project later. Again, many, many thanks for solving this. stilltim (talk) 09:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for fixing the occupation lookup but giving its own column causes too wide a display and too much wraps. Please restore the two into one column, even if you cannot sort the occupation. stilltim (talk) 15:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Me too, same problem, take your time. I've run this on three monitors, same result, too narrow columns, too much wrapping. Please just take the occupation back in the same column without a possible sort or I will have to delete it to make the whole viable. The dates are not as you describe. It is showing the total service as you and I both want...and they're real important. Birth/death must stay too. But they are being squeezed out by two that are much less critical here and accessable in the Infobox. You made a good call on the right. stilltim (talk) 15:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Question
Hey -- you might remember me back when you merged the Cox Committee and Reece Committee articles together and I acted kind of like an arse. Anyway, I was wondering if you still had a certain book you mentioned during our discussion then: Sadly, it's not available at my local library or in fact my whole library network. I was wondering if you could do me a huge favor if you still have the book handy: In September 1918, pursuant to Senate Resolution 307, the Overman Committee was created to investigate pro-German sentiments in the brewing industry. On 4 February, 1919, the committee's investigations were expanded by S. Res. 439 to include pro-Bolshevist elements in the country as well.

I was wondering if you could check to see if first of all if the committee is listed in the book and if it is, could you check to see if it gives a formal name for the committee? I can't find any. The only thing given anywhere is "a subcommittee on the Committee on the Judiciary".

If you can't find anything/don't have the book/don't have the time/etc, it's no problem at all. Thanks no matter what! Bsimmons 666  (talk) 02:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

You're awesome. Thanks. Bsimmons 666  (talk) 03:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That's great, thanks. I hadn't thought to look in the footnotes. Bsimmons 666  (talk) 13:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Overly
Can't imagine how we missed that before. Thanks for the notice! Nyttend (talk) 03:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Good idea; it's surely a good idea to note the confusion. By the way, have you seen NE2's comment on my talk page?  He suggests that perhaps it once extended into Rolette but has since somehow un-annexed that portion.  Un-annexation seems a bit farfetched to me, but it seems perhaps the best explanation to this confusion.  Thanks for the research!  Nyttend (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Congressional Research Service Report
I noticed there's a "speedy deletion" tag at this page, I'm having trouble understanding why (it looks rather technical) -- would you mind explaining it to me? (Yesterday I created the page CRS Report, and I thought Congressional Research Service Report would be a useful redirect.) Agradman talk/contribs 14:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I get it -- you want to move CRS Report to Congressional Research Service Report. That's a fantastic idea. No complaints here. Thanks. Agradman talk/contribs 14:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

michigan townships
I'm not so sure it is a good idea to move all the townships to twp, county, state form. I realize some other states have done so, either creating them with that naming convention because Rambot didn't create those articles as in Ohio, Indiana, and some plains states, or because the state wikiproject supported the renaming, as with Minnesota an Pennsylvania.

For those states where townships are not a strong funtional government and are primarily administrative subdivisions of the county, it may have made sense. I wasn't so sure renaming all the Pennsylvania townships was a very good decision, as the townships are more than simply county subdivisions. IMO, the county name should only be used where disambiguation is necessary. Otherwise a naming convention with pre-emptive disambiguation gives the impression that there is an administrative hierarchy where none exists.

In Michigan, redirects are already in place for the entire set of current township, so links to twp, county, state will go to the correct township. older ≠ wiser 16:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

United States Senate
Thanks for handling the discussion at United States Senate. I was hoping someone would notice it and help maintain the quality of the article. I have been away for awhile, and I felt myself getting more irritated than I should. The lack of AGF and the leap to nastiness still bother me as much as they had gotten to bother me 2.5 months ago. I hope I get over it soon. -Rrius (talk) 17:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think 98.212.175.158 may be Gorrillasapiens. I have mentioned the possibility to User:Work permit, but I am not sure whether it would actually be appropriate to start a WP:SSP case over it or not. For now, I reverted the addition to the table. -Rrius (talk) 20:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Sherrod Brown
The warning wasn't directed at you; it was meant to be more along the lines of giving the user another reason not to continue posting the letters, besides those that you and others had given. Unless I remember wrongly, violation of 3RR is permitted when you're removing obvious BLP problems. Nyttend (talk) 21:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that there was a warning until I read your message a few seconds ago, so I must have missed it. Thanks!  Nyttend (talk) 02:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Pro forma session
Do you have any idea why the Senate held a pro forma session yesterday? No committee reports or anything were filed or nominations received, and the Senate already had permission under the adjournment resolution to gavel out on Friday. -Rrius (talk) 23:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

IL26
Do you know if Illinois had a 26th congressional district? Please see Articles for deletion/Illinois's 26th congressional district. —Markles 23:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Illinois had 25 plus two at large seats according to United States congressional delegations from Illinois at its max. It apparently never had more than 25 districts. -Rrius (talk) 00:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This source suggests it did have 26. -Rrius (talk) 01:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It appears there was a 26th district for two cycles the 1948 and 1950 elections. -Rrius (talk) 01:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Confirmed. In addition to the sources above, the Official Congressional Directory for the 81st and 82nd Congresses shows an Illinois with a 26th District and. It encompassed 9 counties in the SE part of the state. Alexander, Franklin, Jackson, Monroe, Perry, Pulaski, Randolph, Union, and Williamson. District was represented by C.W. Bishop. Prior to that, the 26th seat was elected at-large.DCmacnut &lt; &gt;

Ted Kennedy
With Ted Kennedy Dying, there's a few interesting things that may happen. I can see 2 things happening.

1. Chris Dodd gives up his Banking Chairmanship to chair the HELP committee. Banking falls to Tim Johnson (D-SD), which then has his subcommittee fall to Jon Tester (D-MT).

2. The HELP Committee falls to Barbara Milkulski (D-MD) which then has her subcommittee fall to Bernie Sanders (I-VT).

His Armed Services subcommittee should goto Jim Webb (D-VA).

This is just my analysis. Do you have anything? Dunstvangeet (talk) 08:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:List of special elections to the United States Senate#Two questions
Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at. Thank you. —Markles 11:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC) (Using )

Stilltim
I have two questions: What was the substance of the differences between the Governors of Maryland article and Stilltim's version? and Is it time for an AN/I on Stilltim? -Rrius (talk) 14:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Re the governor list: The list Stilltim copy-pasted from history was an old version that was featured, in fact it was the first governor list to be featured. So it makes sense that it looks nice. However, a dozen more (roughly) have been featured since then, all with an entirely new format, and without the extraneous data of profession, etc. Stilltim has strongly opposed the new format, although the community itself voted to defeature. So yes, while the new one 'looks' nice, it has lots of extraneous data and has been superceded by the other format. Also, they are not "formatting changes made" - they are formatting changes from 2006. It was a copy-paste move, and on that grounds alone requires speedy deletion. --Golbez (talk) 16:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And thanks for the heads up on the AFD. --Golbez (talk) 16:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I was slightly off on my timing. Here's the featured version from November 2006:

And does this version look familiar? It's from August 2007. So yes, he did put a lot of work into it, but it wasn't today. Incidentally, it was this version that was put up for defeaturing - I made sure to bring it up on FLRC on that format, to see what the people thought about it, and it was defeatured. Since then I've been working on and off to bring it up to featured status, and it's very close, in fact I'm not sure why I haven't nominated it yet, and then he literally rolls it back to a version (of the table; the header was kept mostly intact) that was defeatured. --Golbez (talk) 16:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I actually was not involved in those, I watched from afar. However, you can see I've been with him a while. I'm not sure if ANI would get anywhere, and the first RFC was completely ineffectual. RFAr? --Golbez (talk) 16:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Martinez resignation
The best information I've found is that Mel Martinez is resigning at the "close of business" today. I've seen that phrase it Senate resignation letters before, so it's credible that the letter actually said that. In your experience, what does that mean? My best guess is that means adjournment, is that right? -Rrius (talk) 18:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, LeMieux gets sworn in tomorrow. Originally, it was going to be today. -Rrius (talk) 21:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

fyi
Not sure if you're aware, but you made the NYT. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 11:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

American Factfinder
Sorry, I don't know anything about making templates. Although I did a ton with county navboxes, it was essentially nothing more than copy/pasting new information into an established format that I already knew would work. Help Desk request is coming, however. Nyttend (talk) 20:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Max Bachus
while this edit may have been badly formatted, and out of place, I do not see anything in it that strikes me as POV. This bill supported by Bachus _would_ fine those that do not buy insurance, while not having any requirements that insurance bought covers neccicary health care, nor that deductibles are affordable. , also the AP article sourced.174.21.198.176 (talk) 01:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Reference organizing tool
I saw your barnstar, congratulations. Apparently, it was the result of a reference organizing tool. Sounds intriguing... What is it? How does it work? -Rrius (talk) 00:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It's a really cool tool that DCMacnut discovered and used. It makes it so multiple references don't crowd out the text. Really cool! Hey, DCMacnut, are you a good writer/editor?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, here's the format for DCMacnut's tool (click "edit this page" to see the code):--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Put your code where the tws stuff is (my initials). And the references go inside the squiggly lines –  but no referene carats. And, this stuff goes at the bottom, with the references. In the actual text, all you have to do is put something like after what you want to reference. Truly cool!--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Procedure question
The House version of the health care reform bill is H.R. 3962. That bill was received by the Senate, read twice, and is on the Calendar as No. 210. The Senate chose as the vehicle for its health care reform bill H.R. 3590, which deals with a homebuyer credit for servicemembers. That bill was on the Calendar as 175, and had also bypassed committee in the normal way. Why did the Senate choose that bill? The Senate's course with either bill would have been to adopt a substitute amendment, so I would think conferees would be free to do whatever they want regardless of which bill they used. Please enlighten me. -Rrius (talk) 05:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no clue. There's no hard and fast rule on what bills Reid can call up from the calender. There's also no requirement that every bill passed by the House or even introduced in the Senate be referred to Committee. Often, non-controversial bills are held at the desk for quick action. Reid probably wanted to differentiate his bill from "Pelosi's bill" since HR 3962 is most associated with the House action. All he needed is a revenue bill, and HR 3590 fit the bill. It's still a valid bill for conference, since only the bill numbers need to be the same, not the subject matter. That's the best guess I have.DCmacnut &lt; &gt; 05:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:American politics/party colours/Labor Party/row
A tag has been placed on Template:American politics/party colours/Labor Party/row requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (&lt;noinclude>&#123;{transclusionless}}&lt;/noinclude>).

Thanks. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 06:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)