User talk:Matt319

He is still mayor. Why would you get rid of the "present" as stating that Guinta is still the current mayor of Manchester?

It says incumbent, which means he still holds the office. Note that is also says "assumed office", which means he hasn't left yet. Take a look at other articles like Barack Obama's article. That is an example of correct formatting for politicians. I changed it because it was not in the correct format. Please remember to sign after your comments. Thanks!--Matt319 (talk) 01:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Your RfA
Sorry, but I closed your RfA per WP:NOTNOW. I believe you just do not have enough experience. But this is by no means a deterrent for your next RfA. I would advise waiting until you have about 2,000 edits. Sorry about your RfA. Good luck on the next one though! --The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello. Could you please explain these edits? If you'd like to begin a new RFA, you can do so at Requests_for_adminship/matt319 2 (more details at WP:RFA). Regards, Airplaneman   ✈  14:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

March 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Nyttend (talk) 03:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * First off — I gave you the warning because it seemed as if you deleted it for no good reason, which is vandalism; however, your reasons for so doing aren't vandalism. According to the citation given for the introduction statement, it's in both counties.  You can find this by sorting the table (if you can't do this on the online version, you can download the document and then sort it) alphabetically in the NAME column; some of the lines have "31" in the COUNTY column, and some have "97".  These represent the FIPS county codes: Cook County is #31, and Lake County is #97; you can see this for yourself by looking at the Cook County and Lake County lines of the table, which show those numbers respectively.  Wikipedia articles are written with information that has been verified with reliable sources; the US Census Bureau (which produces this document) is definitely a reliable source for information of this sort.  Please note that the populations given for the portion of the village in Lake County are never more than one person; accordingly, it's quite likely that this portion is very small indeed.  Nyttend (talk) 03:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * See our original research policy; personal experience isn't considered an acceptable source for Wikipedia articles. You must rely on reliable sources, and the Census Bureau source that I've provided is a definitive source.  Nyttend (talk) 01:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The county lists often aren't the best place to look for a list of communities in the county — people (myself included) often forget to add a link to a newly-created article on the county article, even if they add the link to the county template. It's also more likely that it was vandalised; I watch very few county articles, but I watch every county template for all 50 states, and I'll remove vandalism if I think I see it.  Nyttend (talk) 02:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

re Connecticut
Please stop changing the numbering on these articles, especially without the courtesy of an edit summary. The state of Connecticut clearly numbers the current governor at 87. --Golbez (talk) 01:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * All of the other featured governor lists on Wikipedia use the official numbering. We didn't make up the numbering. Note how it's different from state to state depending on if they count acting governors, etc. (see Alabama's list for a complicated situation) Connecticut is the only state that chose to count its colonial governors. --Golbez (talk) 02:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe the link two posts above is pretty concrete evidence. Beyond that, it's hard to find concrete ones, but the press and other organizations have been known to use this official numbering:  and even the New York Times: . The press uses it and, far more importantly, the state government seems to use it. --Golbez (talk) 03:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Hold up
I notice you are changing succession boxes on defeated Congressional incumbents without an edit summary - do have a consensus for this? Kelly hi! 23:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Before making mass changes like this that might be controversial, please get a consensus for doing so...also, please use an edit summary on your edits, thanks. Kelly  hi! 00:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I see you've pressed on - I started a thread requesting opinions here. Kelly  hi! 00:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Matt, you are correct in your actions. Successors do not succeed until they are sworn in and their term begins. The problem is not with your changes, but the changes of those who anticipate the events. An election is not a succession. Kablammo (talk) 00:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I wasn't sure of the policy/style. Have you got a link for reference? FYI, can we agree there should at least be some edit summaries with the changes? Kelly  hi! 00:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure there's a policy, but this comes up every election. To take the example of Congress:  Incumbents, even defeated ones, will return to session this month.  Kablammo (talk) 00:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * My point is that there there should be some explanation or link in the edit summary or it will lead to edit wars. For instance, I see someone already reverted the change to Charlie Crist. Kelly  hi! 00:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that an edit summary should be given. Matt, can you do that?  Kablammo (talk) 00:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Kablammo, I can do that. So is there still an issue about editing these pages, or will the edit summaries suffice? --Matt319 (talk) 01:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The post at AN/I hasn't attracted any attention here. If folks are changing succession boxes to insert the name of one who has won the election but has not yet taken office, I think you should continue, as incumbents generally remain in the office until their successors take it up (with some exceptions which do not apply here).  Kablammo (talk) 01:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Matt, even if you give an edit summary, you need to make sure there is consensus for these changes. If people disagree, they'll be re-added back later and you'll just be wasting time. I suggest you ask at any related WikiProject about consensus for these changes. But yes, and edit summary is crucial and should always be used for every edit anywhere. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  01:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think he needs permission to make these edits, any more than he would to make other edits. What he is doing is removing the names of election victors from succession boxes, where those victors have not yet taken office, and will not take office for another month or two.  In that he is correct:  a candidate does not become an office holder until he or she is sworn in.  Kablammo (talk) 01:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Permission, no. But as people have been asking about this, consensus would be needed to see if these edits will go on or if the names will be re-added. I have no opinion on the names, just saying that consensus would be helpful in clarifying this. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  03:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That was my concern. I have a bunch of these politician articles watchlisted, and edits like this are contentious. Kelly  hi! 03:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I just happened to notice this thread, and it looks like I acted on an already resolved issue. If that is the case, please ignore my warning below and revert me. - F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 04:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Question: Does anyone here claim that Senator Dorgan has been succeeded by anyone yet? The infobox field uses the past tense, and he has not been succeeded by anyone yet. The threat below is wrong. Matt not only acted in good faith, he acted correctly, and in accordance with the facts. Kablammo (talk) 05:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Please leave an edit summary
Hi, you didn't explain this edit. Why did you remove her name? Regards Hekerui (talk) 01:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

November 2010
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. - F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 04:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from performing controversial mass-removal of text from politicians' pages without a valid reason or explanation. - F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 04:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Fastily, please investigate further before making such threats. Matt's edits were correct. His last edit on the subject was a minute past midnight UTC, and he has discussed his reasons, both here and at Kelly's talk page.  Now, almost 4 1/2 hours later, you come along and threaten him with a block, for conduct which not only has ceased, but which should not have ceased-- these politicians have not yet been succeeded by anyone yet. He has "a valid reason or explanation"-- he's correct. Kablammo (talk) 05:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming you didn't bother reading my post up at . - F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 06:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You have been warned about this before. Please stop your disruptive infobox edits or further action may be taken. - BlagoCorzine2016 (talk) 05:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

No, we agreed that as long as I was adding an explanation as to why I was changing it, the edit was fine. Please assume good faith before posting such comments again. Thanks.--Matt319 (talk) 02:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 04:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

You're invited! New England Wikimedia General Meeting
Message delivered by Dominic at 08:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC). Note: You can remove your name from this meetup invite list here.

2nd Annual Wikimedia New England General Meeting
You are invited to the 2nd Annual Wikimedia New England General Meeting, on 20 July 2013 in Boston! We will be talking about the future of the chapter, including GLAM, Wiki Loves Monuments, and where we want to take our chapter in the future! EdwardsBot (talk) 09:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

New England Wikipedia Day @ MIT: Saturday Jan 18
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.)

You're invited!
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.)

This Friday: Women in Architecture edit-a-thon @ Cambridge, MA
You are invited to join the Women in Architecture edit-a-thon @ Cambridge, MA on October 16! (drop-in any time, 6-9pm)--Pharos (talk) 18:29, 14 October 2015 (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) 14:05, 24 November 2015 (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) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Sunday July 16: New England Wiknic @ Cambridge, MA
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Women in Red World Contest
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!