User talk:GoldRingChip/Archives/2011

Thanks!
Thanks for sorting out my errors on the List of United States federal legislation pages! Jazzmista (talk) 17:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I took a lot of pride in the original article, having done a lot of work on it.  I was a little taken aback at first when you made the split; but WP:OWN is a good policy and I like the split you made.  Please continue to contribute to the articles!—GoldRingChip  19:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

speedy delete to prepare for Science committee move
I posted a speedy delete request up at United States House Committee on Science, Space and Technology. The Science and Technolgy Committee has been renamed, but since the redirect has a longer article history the move over redirect won't work.DCmacnut &lt; &gt; 21:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Nevermind. Someone got to it already.DCmacnut &lt; &gt; 21:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Magic!—GoldRingChip 22:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

37th Congress pics.
I mostly like your revisions...pics sort of get lost down in the lists, though. The general guidelines would have pics to draw the reader into the text ... Nevertheless, I really do like featuring the statuary (a relative sculpted Jefferson at UVA), so if that's what it takes for art's sake ...

But I am still unhappy with visual string of anti-slavery pics that runs entirely across the page ... as it now appears, it chops the narrative in an unnatural break (my bad). I've tried a couple sand box efforts, and just can't figure how to fix it.

Can we break the 6x1 pictues to 3x2 and put them right, leaving the text to run left half of the page? That will allow a general conformity with the following section ... sorry, Could you help with coding that placement? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

p.s. and putting the major events up top is exactly right. much better. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive invitation
Guoguo12 --Talk--  16:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Party summary
Sorry to bother you, but I'd rather you check my change and if you agree, you change the party summary. But I might change the summary myself, if the affiliation change is unquestionable. On the other side, if Charles Kellogg was Adams, there would be nothing to change. Kraxler (talk) 20:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've opened it up to a broader discussion at Talk:Daniel G. Garnsey.—GoldRingChip 19:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm always open to debate. Kraxler (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

List of United States federal legislation
I think you went too far in reverting vandalism. Bearian (talk) 16:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yup. Thanks for fixing it.  My mistake.—GoldRingChip  16:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

RE: bold committee names
I suppose I just find it aesthetically pleasing Nevermore  | Talk 10:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it's also helpful. Yes the subcommittees are further indented, but since some of the names are quite long, many of these lists have a lot of text, so boldface helps people pick out the main committees. I'm generally against boldface text, but I think this is a good use of it. -Rrius (talk) 10:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Azra singh
Hi. My bad for not explaining. So yeah that guy/gal messed up a bunch of election articles changing the results, mostly to have Republicans win majorities when they didn't (in one case the opposite). I couldn't undo his vandalism without first undoing any edits that came after. So what you want me to manually fix all the data? That's a lot more work than justing hitting "undo". Can't you do your edits again manually?

Anyway you may wanna keep your eye out for that guy. I have a feeling he or she is not done. Cole Dalton (talk) 15:43 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. Have you spoken with him/her?  I should have made the corrections myself before then adding my further edits.  Presuming your data is correct and his/hers is not (and I'm not up for checking it now, simply because I'm lazy), you did the right thing, except you should have put more info in the Edit summary to explain your reversion.  Keep up making warranted reversions as best you can.  If you must undo all, then undo all.—GoldRingChip  01:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I just left him a message. I see you and another person fixed some. I had to revert the rest except for 1 where his edit was minor. He did some strange things like make the results of the 1930 Senate election add up to 100 even though there were only 96 Senators at the time. I checked all the data using the Senate and House Clerk Websites. Cole Dalton (talk) 00:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So are we all set with reverting the damaged articles? I also left Azra Singh a message on his/her talk page.  As you see from this edit, he/she deleted my question without a response.—GoldRingChip  01:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

List of Representatives-elect of the United States House of Representatives who never took office
Hi- A few years ago, you started an article about Representatives-elect who never took office in the United States House of Representatives. I was able to start articles for these people and I added one Francis Gehon of Iowa Territory who never took office because of a change in the law governing the US House of Representatives Iowa Territorial Delegate. There was one article that of Andrew J. Campbell-2 administrators who are inactive- deleted the article for somewhat unclear reasons-a banned editor? One other article I am working on is Franklin Potts Glass (1858-1934) of Alabama. Glass was appointed to the US Senate by the Governor of Alabama to fill a vacancy and the Senate refused to seat him because of the recent ratified Seventeenth Amendment to the US Constitution. Glass was a notable newspaper publisher in Alabama. Please take a look at the articles and see what you think-some sort of category may be needed. Thank you-RFD (talk) 17:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

112th United States Congress
Ah, I see that there were more vandalizing edits down the page that I didn't notice. It's been awhile since I last patrolled. Illinois2011 (talk) 17:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. I protected it for six hours, so that expires at 23:19 UTC.  Thanks for keeping an eye on it! —GoldRingChip  17:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject United States Government
Greetings. I noticed that you are one of the members of WikiProject United States Government that are still active so I wanted to ask you a question. It appears that this project is mostly inactive aside from what the members might be doing independently. I was considering suggesting that this project be pulled in under WikiProject United States and wanted to solicit comments from some of this projects members before doing so. As with Washington DC and the others the project would for the most part maintain its own independence but I believe this would benefit both projects. What do you think about this? --Kumioko (talk) 23:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure. —GoldRingChip  00:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit notice
I'm not sure why the edit notice for the Ordinal Congresses is protected, but anyway, it says dates should be in mdy rather than ISO, but the example given is wrong. Leading zeroes are used, so it should be "2011-05-07" rather than "2011-5-7". -Rrius (talk) 01:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I have made the change, thanks for the notice. See Editnotice Date format Mmmm d, yyyy.—GoldRingChip 12:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Which is protected? —GoldRingChip 12:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Ordinal Congress Templates
I've created templates for both the US Senate and US House for the changes in membership outline in the ordinal congresses. I noticed that there are a various iterations under different ordinals, this will make them all consistent when the template is applied. Then if anyone would like to make changes to the outline, all they would need to do is change the template, then all would be changed simultaneously and consistently for all congresses. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress/Ordinal congresses.......Pvmoutside (talk) 21:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request at Template:U.S. Senator box
Hi GoldRingChip. Remember the tweak you made for me at Template:USRepSuccessionBox about a month ago? Would you mind doing the same thing at Template:U.S. Senator box? I posted an edit request but nobody has responded yet; it may be that not many admins are watching that page. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 02:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Ohio Senators
What are all those question marks? Why you condensed the chronologies?

--46.12.13.100 (talk) 16:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I just hadn't gotten around to finishing editing.—GoldRingChip 18:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Date of taking office for House members elected in special elections
Hi. We are once again seeing an edit war, with Kathy Hochul's date of taking office being bounced back and forth between May 24, when she was elected, and today, June 1, when she was sworn in. Can we locate a definitive source stating which is correct, so this dispute doesn't crop up every time there's a special election? The Clerk of the House's practice is to add her to the official list as of the date of oath-taking, but to list the election date as the date for beginning of service. She wouldn't have been able to vote on anything until she took the oath. Thanks, JTRH (talk) 23:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Polling
I wanted to let you know I am done. You win. The polling format has been like this since the start of Wikipedia. It is done universally for articles for elections world-wide. But I am not going to fight anymore. The way you want it done is out of order, is a pain to edit, which is what I mainly do, and quite frankly, you have no regard of other opionions. You claim that a consensus was developed about a year ago, but it wasn't. There is a reason other editors and IP's didn't follow what you want, because it's not right, and against what is done, as I stated earlier, in articles for elections world wide. I am leaving this project, which I have devoted five years too, due to my caring about politics, because of you. You take the "your way or the highway" approach, and I'm done. Too bad out of all the things that need to be done, you choose to bully your way on the polling issue, and I can't take it. It is too much of an emotionally thing, since I have devoted half a decade to polling. You win, I'm done.America69 (talk) 23:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I had a cooling down period. I am very sorry, but I am very, very emotional on some issues, and this is one. I respect your view. I truly, and passionately feel as though the current format is fine. It is the format that has been used since Wikipedia started polling on election pages. It is the way it is done for articles of elections world wide. There is so much that needs to be done, and the only thing I do is polling. I ask, with all due respect to your view, and the work you have done, is there anyway we can compromise, so that we all can be happy. Almost all of my edits are election related, with probably 80%+ being updating polls. Sorry for how emotional I got, this is a issue I care about! America69 (talk) 00:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Reverse ordered polling
We need to do something about this ongoing issue. I know that you and I agree on it, but there are many editors aggressively disagreeing with us, and I feel we need to have a big discussion in a centralized place, but I'm not sure where. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Somewhere in WikiProject Elections and Referendums we discussed it last year or the year before. Find it on one of the archived Talk pages and then direct editors back to it.—GoldRingChip  00:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums/Archive 5 is the discussion you're talking about. I'm trying to direct editors there with minimal success. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There was never any consensus on it, just you always claimed there was. I even brought up that point in that discussion. If I recall, (it was over a year ago) there was never any resolution, and that is why other editors and IP's continued to do the polling in the way it has been done since the inclusion of polls back in 2004 articles. America69 (talk) 01:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If that's the way you feel, then we should just institute a "cease fire" on this and find a centralized place where everybody talks it out until we reach a conclusion. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I will gladly take a "cease fire" until a discussion can start. America69 (talk) 01:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Polling war
I saw that you are an admin. I would like to ask some admin to block User:Tiller54 under the 3RR rule, editing the article New York's 26th congressional district special election, 2011. Since one revert was to an edit you had made yourself, I'm not sure if it would be better to refer it to some other admin. In this case, could you forward my request? Kraxler (talk) 19:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:CollinsAndLieberman.png
Thanks for uploading File:CollinsAndLieberman.png. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 03:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

United States Congress
My sense is the article about United States Congress Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction is important. I added a section to United States Congress but it was deleted on the basis of WP:RECENTISM by another contributor but I think there should be some mention of this committee in the Congress article, maybe 1 or 2 lines at least.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Use mdy dates
Why did you put a link to the editnotice template Editnotice Date format Mmmm d, yyyy in the documentation of Use mdy dates? These templates have nothing in common, and are being used in completely different situations with completely different results. I don't think that the fact that both have to do with the format mdy is enough of a reason to have it there. Debresser (talk) 22:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. I've reverted it.—GoldRingChip  00:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: images
Those images are not to be used per an rfc done on them a while back, so I've been removing them. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What can we put in their place?—GoldRingChip 16:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure. Most tables make it so those sections can be blank no problem, but that doesn't seem to be the case with these. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 17:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Budget Control Act of 2011
Gatoclass (talk) 08:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

re: 37th Congress
the 37th Congress

Under Major Events the article is biased. It states "the people" of particular states voted for secession. The ELECTORATE would be accurate whereas "the people" is highly inaccurate. Blacks were people and were excluded from voting of course. Claiming "the people" were for secession disregards history. For instance in Tennessee the first vote was AGAINST secession, but no mention is made of this. The second vote succeeded because the secessionists had enough time to corrupt the vote, scare off pro-Union voters & because a change probably did occur with a small tilt towards secession.

I am unable to make the change from "people" to "electorate". Could you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.32.60.7 (talk) 06:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Why are you unable to make the change yourself?—GoldRingChip 12:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Edits to United States House of Representatives elections, 1932‎‎
Thanks, feel free to go ahead with changes you prefer, since I can't guarantee getting through the whole list in one batch anyway - I'll try to mirror format changes when appropriate in new adds, although the redistricting is always tricky to get right. Willhsmit (talk) 16:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

September 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
--Kumioko (talk) 02:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

http://www.statesman.com/news/texas-politics/lawsuit-charges-racial-bias-in-redistricting-maps-1821700.html this is a reference which does in fact refer to gerrymandering to describe the district and the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikel6T7 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Websites
Now we are calling website's historical? Again, I truly believe you think you own this collaborative encyclopedia. Website's for candidates not continuing on have NEVER been kept. But this is another example where your view trumps mine. You really make me not want to stay here, since it seems you have no respect for my view what so ever. And I hate saying this. America69 (talk) 01:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Then revert it. —GoldRingChip 01:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, I went to post this comment by hitting the "please start new section HERE" on that red bar on your "notice to editors" bar, and it redirected me to your wrong account. I didn't catch it until I had already saved. Just wanted to inform you. America69 (talk) 01:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for catching the error. I've now fixed it.—GoldRingChip  01:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I wanted to bring it to your attention. I am not going to revert it, it's a small thing that I wish not to blow up completely. I just wanted to express how I feel. I just feel my views are sometimes over looked and disregarded, which I highly doubt is intentional. It is just very frustrating! Thank you for the reply. America69 (talk) 01:37, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll admit that am an active editor. I am swayed by good arguments (or bad arguments in consensus).  I wish to keep WP a collaborative project.—GoldRingChip  01:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And I share what you said above. I know we have clashed in the past, but I highly respect all the work you do on here. I saw all the work you have done updating congressional district pages, senator's by state's, and long, long time ago election pages. I try to be active, but am not even close to your level. Maybe this is the beginning where we can work together more to further this encyclopedia, keeping it collaborative, then me bickering, or us disagreeing all the time! All the best! America69 (talk) 01:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Date format
Per MOS:DATEUNIFY, using YYYY-MM-DD is perfectly acceptable for the "accessdate" parameter of the cite template. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

"This is not the Blue Book".
What style guide governs how Wikipedia should format legal citations, and why is "Pub.L." an acceptable form of citation? Robert K S (talk) 22:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:MOS is a guide, but there is no hard rule.—GoldRingChip 23:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Manual of Style/Legal is even more specific, but it does not speak to legal abbreviations. The basic rule in legal abbreviations is that you can "cinch up" single-letter abbreviations (i.e., remove the spaces between them) but not between two multiple-letter abbreviations.  Thus, Pub.L. is incorrect.  If your only reason for reverting my change to the template is "We don't follow the Bluebook," that doesn't seem to be a very good reason.  I offered a change that is in conformance with legal writing standards.  Shouldn't the counterproposal ought to have some basis besides "Nope, status quo"? Robert K S (talk) 20:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I wrote that badly. That's my mistake.  I didn't revert for reasons of status quo; rather I reverted because "Blue Book" was an insufficient reason to change the template, any more than "Chicago Manual" or "Emily Post" or whatever.—GoldRingChip  20:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * How is that rationale different from "Nope, status quo"? What was the current template based on?  Why should it remain in a form that is merely a bad corruption, a misunderstanding of the legal abbreviation rule? Robert K S (talk) 22:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. What I mean is that we can seek a consensus to develop a style.   That's fine with me.  Find a better place than my talk page, such as WP:MOS or whatever.—GoldRingChip  00:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: User:GoldRingChip/sandbox3
Re: User:GoldRingChip/sandbox3, are you intending to do odd-numbered years? Willhsmit (talk) 00:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Somehow, maybe. I don't know.  Maybe I'll link them all to List of special elections to the United States House of Representatives, but that's probably a bad idea.—GoldRingChip  01:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Unnecessary changes
I did some very minor changes today, which you undid as they were unnecessary. I've had an intensive look at the last 6 congresses, and I just noticed that the names of the various politicians are spelt differently between the different Wikipedia pages. The same is true for the party membership of some of the members. I just wanted to "correct" this, i.e. edit the entries so that they are the same between the various congresses.

This would be useful for people who use these lists for database purposes. It might be a detail, but a detail that might save hours of work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Private baldric (talk • contribs) 18:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, good point. I suggest using the same name on all Congresses, which should be the simplified common name.—GoldRingChip  23:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't really care which name is used. In the Congressional Texts, they include the middle initial with some of the politicians, (i.e. Charles B. Rangel) and not with others. I guess it's down to preference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Private baldric (talk • contribs) 05:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You may not care, but Wikipedia does. Please refer to WP:COMMONNAME for style guidance.—GoldRingChip  11:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Point taken :-). However, Charles Rangel is called Charles B. Rangel in several other Wikipedia Congress pages, Mike Enzi is called Michael Enzi in several other Wikipedia congress pages and so on. That's why I edited them. However, I shall refrain from doing so henceforth.
 * OK. By the way, please sign your name by adding " ~ " after comments on user:talk pages (see Signatures).—GoldRingChip  13:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

CfD template
You forgot to subst: your cfd template at Category:United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2004. Without the subst, the template wont point to the correct deletion log day. I've fixed it, but just letting you know for the future. Monty 845  19:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Something was nagging at me, but I couldn't remember what it was.—GoldRingChip  13:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

CongLinks
Because you commented at Template talk:CongLinks in the past, I'd like to invite you to comment on a proposed addition to the template at Template talk:CongLinks. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 19:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)