User talk:Dunstvangeet

Al Franken
It's all speculation until he's sworn in. Franken has said he will be on HELP, Judiciary, Aging, and Indian Affairs. Aging and Indian Affairs have one vacancy, and HELP has Whitehouse in temporarily. Judiciary is unknown. I think the Senate will adopt a resolution appointing Franken to his committees the same day he's sworn in, which could be as early as Monday. I don't want to speculate on who might leave Judiciary, but it's likely that someone will have to leave to make room for Franken. Or, because of the Specter switch, they may just expand the committee by one more Dem and one more Republican. It's anyone's guess.DCmacnut &lt; &gt; 16:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It may be speculation, but I was actually a little surprised that Ron Wyden (D-OR) was appointed the Judiciary Committee, this time around, when he already had 5 committees, and raising in rank in those committees. He was 3rd on both Budget and Energy (and may be next in line for Energy Chairmanship), 2nd on both Intelligence and Aging, and of course, he has finance, where's he's #7, or so.  I thought that it may have been a temporary thing until Franken was seated, but they didn't want to have the vacancy on Judiciary, so they appointed Wyden.  My other speculation was that Wyden may have been giving up his Budget Committee, where Jeff Merkley was appointed to this cycle.  It's unusual to have 2 members assigned to the same committee from the same party and the same state.  There's informal rules that regulate it. Dunstvangeet (talk) 18:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not unusual for committee's to have both a states senators on a committee. Bingaman and Domenici headed the Energy and Natural Resources Committee for years. I know of no informal rules regarding the issue. The only rule is how many A, B, and C committee you can serve. It just doesn't happen that often because senatorial interest, seniority, and party affiliation often lead to different committee paths.


 * Wyden is an odd duck, but waivers are routinely granted. Earl Pomeroy has a waiver to serve on both the Ways and Means Committee and the Agriculture Committee, even though it's prohibited by House rules. Wyden is exceeding the 2-Class A committee membership limit by joining Judiciary this year, and he already was exceeding the Class B limit by serving on Aging, Intelligence, and Budget. I'm basing my comment on reports from Franken himself that Reid has promised him a seat on Judiciary, and it seems likely that Wyden would give up his Judiciary seat so he's back in semi-compliance with Senate rule. However, Reid hasn't formally announced anything about Franken, so we'll need to wait until tomorrow to find out for sure.DCmacnut &lt; &gt; 18:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "Republican members from the same state are prohibited from serving on the same committee by Republican Conference rule. Democrats adhere to the same prohibition, but by tradition."


 * Sounds as if the Republicans have specific rules within their committee assignment (committee on committees) process to prevent that. Democrats don't, but do it based upon tradition. Dunstvangeet (talk) 15:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Exceptions to the rule
From the following CRS Report

"Each senator is limited to service on two "A" committees and one of the "B" committees. Service on "C" committees is unrestricted. Exceptions to the restrictions are recommended by the pertinent party conference and then official authorized through Senate approval of a resolution affecting one or more Senators. Sometimes these exceptions are authorized to accord the majority party a working majority on a committee, whereas at other times exceptions are made to accomodate the preferences and needs of individual senators."

Currently, Bill Nelson, Sheldon Whitehouse serve on 3 "B" Committees. Budget, Aging, and Intelligence. Part of the reason why people seem to be doubling up on intelligence is that after the September 11th Attacks, the committee's minimum size was permanently increased. With 60 Democrats and 40 Republicans, and a number of committees to fill, there are always deviations. The committee ratio-assignement process is always a game of give and take between the two parties. The rules, in practice, serve as more of a guide than a hard-fast rule. And, when there are huge swings in party control like the last two elections, it's more likely that there will be deviations from the rule to ensure no senator is forced to give up a committee assignment just so they can take on a new one to give the majority control of that committee. Arlen Specter's party switch made that all the more realistic, since the Democrats now have a 5-seat majority on most of the committee's he served as a Republican, and just 3 seats on most others.DCmacnut &lt; &gt; 18:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Kennedy
I've got nothing. He was a friend and colleague, and I'm still dealing with the loss.DCmacnut &lt; &gt; 13:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of List of United States Senators in the 112th Congress by seniority
I have nominated List of United States Senators in the 112th Congress by seniority, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/List of United States Senators in the 112th Congress by seniority. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Rrius (talk) 22:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

New Senate seniority articles
You should probably read the Chronological List before making anymore of these pre-1959 articles. The current factors for deciding seniority do not go back that far. In fact, seniority was not even a big deal in the first hundred years or so of the Republic because there was so much turnover. Also, we no longer link dates to autoformat, and "March 4th", as opposed to "March 4" is incorrect under WP:MOS. -Rrius (talk) 10:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I see you've made yet another one. Will you please explain why you think it is okay to retroactively apply a seniority system that as best we know dates to the 1950s? Can you further explain why you are using that system rather than using the actual seniority list set out in your only source? -Rrius (talk) 18:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Because it was being done previously by other users. Check out the ones such as the 85th congress.  Not done by me (done before I started doing the Congresses), but done by other people, using the same seniority.  Also, on the notes, it does say, "It is unclear just when the Senate first began applying such criteria." Trying to make them all consistant. Dunstvangeet (talk) 18:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That is not a good reason. It says it is unclear, but it does not suggest or imply that it goes back to the beginning of the Republic. The best we can do for now is follow the actual source rather than making up our own reality. -Rrius (talk) 05:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Would you at least stop making new ones until the issue is resolved? -Rrius (talk) 05:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I figure it's easier to edit it, if we decide to do it, with all the information already there. Basically, I've been taking the dates and their pasts from the official congressional biography maintained here. Dunstvangeet (talk) 07:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I commend your dilligence, but what you are doing appears to violate WP:OR. The Senate officially states that the current seniority system did not exist prior to the 1950s, or if it did they can't prove that it did. Therefore, any attempt to apply the modern seniority system of date of service/prior elected office to these historical congresses is original research. The official Senate chronology is the official seniority list. Please refrain from creating these articles.DCmacnut &lt; &gt; 14:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, the seniority dates are not always the same as the service dates. The Chronological List is the best source we have for seniority dates, so we should use that. -Rrius (talk) 17:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And, no, it is actually harder to follow along behind you and correct everything. At this point, because you add notes on who resigned, it is necessary for each one to rearrange everyone, delete the inaccurate info, and correct the seniority dates. It would be easier to start with an empty article, carry forward the list for the previous Congress, delete and add as necessary, and move on to the next article. Your creating new inaccurate articles makes the job of providing accurate ones more difficult. -Rrius (talk) 17:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Honestly, that list isn't more "official" on the list than anything else. It's a compilation done by a senate staffer, and does have mistakes in it.  I generally trust the official congressional bios, rather than the seniority dates.  For instance, John Kerry, as far as the Democratic Party is concerned, is actually behind Tom Harkin in Seniority.  That's due to a rule change that basically says that after an election, nobody can be sworn in to their term early for the purposes of changing seniority.  This was put into effect in 1980, yet, John Kerry was sworn in 1 day early in 1985, and is listed before Tom Harkin and Mitch McConnell.  He should theoretically be behind them.  I think that the dates from the official congressional bios are more accurate.  In 1981, Paula Hawkins, and Jeremiah Denton were sworn in early, despite that rule and are listed before their respective places.  1985, John Kerry was sworn in early.  In fact, it seems like the only one who wasn't allowed that was John Cornyn.  I see no reason to trust that more than the official congressional bios. Dunstvangeet (talk) 03:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the list is produced by the same people who produce the official congressional biographies, so it is equally official. In any event, it is actually a source, whereas what you are producing is a combination of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The Harkin/Kerry issue has been discussed at Seniority in the United States Senate to no resolution. That the list may contain errors in these specific contexts is frankly irrelevant to the main question: Your lists are based on no source, and should not exist. -Rrius (talk) 03:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Having looked at a the first several Congresses, the date differences seem to be down to the BioGuide using the date of election versus the List using the date of a midterm election, the beginning of a term, or a date of appointment. Thus, I once again note that the seniority date can legitimately be different from the date the BioGuide says the senator "entered service" or the like. -Rrius (talk) 04:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, the date of election and the date of service are two different things. It's the date of service that determines seniority. For instance, take Al Franken, for instance. He was elected officially in November 2008, however, the recount and challenge pushed him upto the process back to July, when he was finally declared won. He entered congress as the most junior senator (despite if he had taken his seat on January 3rd, 2009, he would have been between Kay Hagan and Jeff Merkeley. So, his date of election was November 3rd.  The date his term started was January 3rd, 2008.  However, he didn't actually take his seat until July 7, when his credentials were presented, and he was sworn in to be Senator.  The official congressional biography says (in part): "following a June 30, 2009, decision in his favor by the Minnesota state supreme court, he took the oath of office and began service on July 7, 2009."  This matches up with his seniority date on the Senate Seniority Wikipedia list.  If it was truly date of election, wouldn't it be listed s either January 3rd, or June 30 (when he became the Senator Elect).  Why July 3rd? Dunstvangeet (talk) 15:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The Kerry example is a red herring. The 1980 rule applies only to senators who take office early to get better office space. Kerry was sworn in early, but entered the normal freshman pecking order for office assignments. So he is listed properly in terms of seniority. The Senate Historical Office is the lead reliable source on determining seniority. It's not just "some senate staffer." John Cornyn's seniority was affected by the 1980 rule because he took office more than a month early just so he could move into Phil Graham's office. Kerry was sworn in a day early and did not jump ship in terms of office assignements. In either case, the Senate ultimately gets to determine who has seniority, and the Senate has stated that Kerry is ahead of Harkin.


 * As far as Franken, I have an e-mail from the Historical Office that states unequivically that Franken's term started July 7, not January 3. He was elected to the term that started January 3, but the recount means that his term did not start until July. The same would be true if Coleman had won. There would have been a gap in service. The Constitution says terms are 6 years. It says nothing about requiring that each Senator serve 6 years.


 * Bottom line is there is simply no evidence that today's seniority rules applied to early senators.DCmacnut &lt; &gt; 16:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Dunstvangeet, you have a superficial understanding of seniority dates. The first thing you don't understand is that "service date" is a meaningless term. For some senators, their seniority date is when they took the oath. For others, it is when they were appointed or the day after they were elected to fill a vacancy. Franken's seniority date is not January 3, from the Senate's perspective, for the same reason Jay Rockefeller's isn't: he didn't show up on time. Since the Senate Historical Office's research determined certain days to be the seniority dates for early senators, we should respect the determination unless we find proof to the contrary. The fact that the Senate Historical Office has uses a different date when saying a person served from X to Y is not proof to the contrary because the dates are not always the same thing. -Rrius (talk) 18:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

List of senators by seniority
The article title states that this list is for the 30th congress, but the text reads "28th congress". I am from England, so I clearly have no idea which is the correct number - I would be grateful for your correction of this. Many thanks. Gilo  &ouml;  05:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, been doing a lot of copying and pasting. Need to go back and proof-edit. Dunstvangeet (talk) 07:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Senators elected in 2010
I see that you've already created commented-out entries for the Senators entering as a result of the 2010 elections. I wanted to give you a heads-up that the list is not yet set in stone, particularly with regard to those succeeding appointees (Rubio, Coons and Kirk). Their swearing-in dates may vary, and it's not clear to me whether they will be retroactively given seniority starting the day after the election. Also, the 2010 Census results will be officially delivered by December 31 (i.e, before the beginning of the next Congress), and I don't know whether the bigger-state tiebreaker in the 112th Congress will be based on 2000 or 2010 data. Without looking it up, I don't know if any of the states with incoming Senators have changed their population rankings in comparison to each other as a result of the new Census, but it can't yet be ruled out. It might be best to hold off on creating the list until the Secretary of the Senate (who is the authoritative source) issues the rankings, probably when the new Congress convenes or slightly before. JTRH (talk) 15:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And until I looked at the bottom of the chart on your user page, I had completely forgotten about the Alaska issue. Obviously, the outcome of that race will affect the seniority charts, because Murkowski and Miller wouldn't have the same ranking. JTRH (talk) 15:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A couple of things:
 * The Population rankings in Seniority will be based upon the 2000 elections, because that is what they were elected under. The 2010 census will affect the 2012-2020 elections and the senators coming from there.
 * Other than that, there is these facts. I don't believe Marco Rubio was actually elected to finish out the term in Florida.  He was elected for the next term, starting January 3rd.  I could be wrong, though.  Kirk was elected for the remaining two months of this term at the same time as being elected for the 2011-2017 term (2 seperate races, actually), so Kirk can take his place before January 3rd, but I don't think that Rubio can.  Joe Manchin, Chris Coons, and Mark Kirk can be seated before, as they were elected to fill out the rest of the previous terms (Manchin's term ends in 2013, Coon's in 2015, and Kirks in 2011).  Now, George LaMieux can resign (he's under no legal obligation to), and Charlie Christ can choose (he's under no legal obligation to so as far as I know) to appoint Rubio.  However, that can be fishy, because of the Seniority rules.  Even that might not get Rubio more seniority.  Anyways, my list is correct.  I didn't add the November 15, or the November 29th ones.  I added January 3rd. Dunstvangeet (talk) 00:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. After I read your comment, I looked at the list again and it doesn't seem that any of the affected states will move up or down the population list in relation to one another, regardless of which census is used. That satisfies the concern I had about the order of the January 3 senators. I'm just suggesting that the rankings of the new senators may change for a couple of reasons:
 * (1) The order in which the appointees' successors (Manchin, Coons and Kirk) will be sworn in is unclear. For example, I just did about five minutes of research and came up with media reports giving three different dates for when Manchin will be sworn in. He may move up or down with respect to Coons and Kirk because of that.
 * (2) I'm not sure whether or not those three will be given seniority retroactive to Nov. 3, the day after the election. Please bear with me for a second: Hypothetically, let's say Coons gets sworn in tomorrow, Manchin gets sworn in the day after tomorrow, and Kirk gets sworn in the day after that. So Coons is senior to Manchin, who is senior to Kirk, and the list is updated to reflect that. Then, all three are given seniority retroactive to Nov. 3. So they officially took office on the same day. Kirk is a former Representative and Manchin is a former Governor. So now, Kirk is senior to Manchin, who is senior to Coons. Does that example clarify my point?
 * (3) It's still unclear whether Murkowski will win, since the news reports I've read have indicated that there isn't yet a strict standard for interpreting the voter's intent in a write-in - how much of "Lisa Murkowski" do you have to write correctly for your vote to be registered for her? If she doesn't pull it out, everyone below her (new Senators since late 2002) moves up one slot from where they are now, and Joe Miller goes in at 100 (since Alaska has a smaller population than all other states with new senators).
 * I appreciate all the work you've done on the list. I just meant to give you a heads-up that the order might change from what you've already entered. Thanks. JTRH (talk) 02:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

No red links
Please do not keep inserting red links into the Chairman or Chairwoman and Ranking member fields of any Senate committees or subcommittees by changing the spellings of members' names. It brings the project into disrepute and I will have to report you to AIV and ANI.

--184.6.222.14 (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Oregon State Beavers football, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dave Baldwin. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:35, 31 December 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) 13:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:GenericTournament
Template:GenericTournament has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 13:52, 15 June 2017 (UTC)