User talk:Stilltim/Archive

Welcome
Hello , and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;. Four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! Tobycat 17:21, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

Philip Phillips
Great question. I wondered the same thing when I started editing. There are two special notices on that article:
 * 1) This article needs to be cleaned up to conform to a higher standard of quality.
 * 2) This article needs to be wikified.

Before explaining how to remove them, let me explain how they are added. If an article looks like a valid topic but the writing is in rather poor shape (or in the wrong tone), the "cleanup" notice is posted. To make that notice appear, people place the following text, including the curly brackets, at the top of the page in the edit window:

It is a similar deal when the article needs formatting (section breaks, proper format for the introductory sentence, links, etc.). Making those style changes is called "wikifying" a page. To put a notice requesting that a page get wikified editors put the following text at the top of the edit box:

Note that you can have as many notices as you want at the top of an article so you may see multiple tags.

Now, how to remove them is pretty easy...just remove the or  tag from the top of the article while in edit mode and save the page.

These are all types of templates, by the way, which are pretty cool tools. There's more info on the commonly used templates at Wp:templates. Thanks for asking. Have fun!

Delware governor project
Wow! I'm flattered that you should ask for my advice. Welcome to (editing) Wikipedia! I hope your project goes perfectly; judging from your contributions, you've already made huge progress. There's no full template for governor articles, but here are a few tips for the intro, which is somewhat standardized:

Start with the full name in bold. Try to get middle names if known. Don't include "Governor" or any other title at the beginning. Immediately following the full name, out in the date of birth and death in parentheses, separated by an ndash. After that, state their nationality, profession, and state. Soon afterwards mention the political party, and after this a brief summary of the person's career. Be sure to make the words flow, and not to use either the pronouns or the name too much.

Try looking at John Holmes (U.S. politician), Albion K. Parris, and John Chandler. And for research, I recommend the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress (public-domain, searchable) and the Political Graveyard  (gigantic, searchable, and extremely comprehensive).

Good luck! If you have any other questions or concerns, don't hesitate to contact me. I hope you'll have a long and enjoyable time here. Warmest regards --Neutralitytalk 06:20, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Welcome
Hi Stilltim - it's always good to see another First-Stater here. Just wanted to say hello. If you have any questions, drop me a message on my talk page →Raul654 01:52, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Re: Governors & other politicians
Welcome to Wikipedia. Always good to see people who want to help.

If you want a basic set of categories for politicians, you'll find that there are a lot of them to use.

When writing an article for a politician, read their history. If they were a physician, search for a category on medicine (a good place to start would be to go to the Medicine article on Wikipedia, and to search in the category for a "people" subcategory, such as Category:Physicians). Politicians are also frequently ex-military, so Category:U.S. Army soldiers or Category:U.S. Navy sailors, for example, are very often used by me.

There are also a bunch of categories that most politicians fit into; in the case of Delaware people, they would probably fit into Category:U.S. Senators from Delaware or Category:U.S. Representatives from Delaware (the latter will be created soon by me). Also, Category:Governors of Delaware.

In terms of a standard format for articles, be sure to include the succession boxes, birth/death categories, stubs if necessary (Template:US-politician-stub), and a picture if possible.

Also, I noticed that in Elbert N. Carvel, the article had two spaces in between paragraphs, which isn't necessary. Only one space is necessary. Also, the succession box goes at the very bottom of the page (just above the categories).

If you want a template to wrap around a picture of a politician in a longer article, try Template:Infobox Politician that I created. See Phillips Goldsborough for an example of how to use the template.

Enjoy your time here and keep up the good work. Feel free to put any questions or comments on my talk page. -- tomf688  18:45, August 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * You seem to be using the categories correctly. There is no "standard" to category naming, but when placing categories in articles, it is not necessary to place both Category:Governors of Delaware and Category:Delaware politicians into the article.  This is because the governors category is a subcategory of the politicians category.  Category:People from Delaware is different than Delaware politicians, since someone can be from Delaware but isn't necessarily a Delaware politician, and vice versa.


 * As for single spacing and putting succession boxes at the bottom, that is the unwritten standard on Wikipedia (you will find that on just about every article, the succession box goes at the bottom and paragraphs are single-spaced).     -- tomf688  19:25, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Chicken?
So what's the deal with the blue hen graphic? I gather it's something to do with Delaware, but I can't find an actual explanation, and without any explanation it's a little weird to see it on all these pages. /blahedo (t) 09:50, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

That's right, it's a well-known state symbol for Delaware- in Delaware, but perhaps not so well-known outside. I'm trying to make these articles look a little more appealing, hence the graphics, but now recognize the need for some explanation. I'll work on it, just don't want to disrupt the focus on the subject of the article...somewhere I saw how to get a description when moving the cursor over top, that may be the answer once I figure out how to do it. Thanks for the heads up.

stilltim 12:27, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Template:Pennsylvania
Nice work on the switch over to the new version, you beat me to it, and nice work on the addational information that you have contributed to Delaware, it's about thime the first state got some respect. As for the template i am cool with everything but that yellow color, i think i you might have caught it off the flag or something, it's just thats it's a bit bright, i ave been looking into some other types to tone it down, any thoughts? --Boothy443 | comhrá 03:58, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah i was thinking of going in the buff or old gold direction, the results were ehhhh, iffy to say the least. I was also considering a blue, but it would have to be lite as not to mask the links. In the end it might have to be warshed out in the end. --Boothy443 | comhrá 03:15, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * oh thats nice, i didnt come acorss that color, yeah i think thats a winner. --Boothy443 | comhrá 03:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Delegation
I like some of what you've done to the Delaware delegation article, but the senate table seems very crowded. Do we really need the president there? --Golbez 16:43, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm putting the President there because the terms seem kind of lost in time without some sort of more familiar reference point. It's intended to help the reader understand where these folks fit in relative to the larger world. I thought about adding major events as well, but agree that would jam it up a bit too much. It's an experiment.

stilltim 16:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * An experiment.. okay. Let's see how it works compared to the other articles; I have a few footnote styles I need to experiment on as well. Personally, though, I think it crowds it too much and is pretty much irrelevant information (For example, most of the individual articles won't say what president they served under). --Golbez 17:22, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Interesting elaboration on Comegys, though personally that may be too much (or too specific) information. Is who was the head of the Catholic Church or France relevant, but not, say, who was head of Mexico or Canada? We have "world leaders of this year" articles.

I made many state delegation articles based on what info I had at the time; I got through most of the simple ones, like Delaware. I stopped until I could get a better reference work; obviously, it's been a long while. I still plan to, of course. I kind of like the idea of mentioning the senate terms separately, but it still clutters up the table, with way too many years. Makes it a little difficult to read. I have an idea to try on that, though.

And yes, these are specifically the DELEGATIONS. An alphabetical list of all the senators/reps would go separately, possibly as a category.

As for the colors, I'm unsure. Perhaps we need to check for a specific wiki convention on Rep/Dem party colors. :) The problem with making them brighter is they tend to make the text harder to read, especially colored wikilinks; I much prefer a "washed out" look. These are only supposed to be subtle indicators, not glaring signals.

You seem concerned that our goals don't mix; based on what I've said, do you still feel that? I say this because I'm still not entirely sure what you mean. You want to turn the delegations page into a timeline, I would say no, it should specifically be about the delegations, not a general timeline of Delaware federal political history. Have I misinterpreted you? And thanks for the response. PS - I did make most of the articles, but my original inspiration was the North Carolina page, if you want to see how this started. --Golbez 19:14, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, that was my idea exactly - have thin, shaded textless boxes alongside the years, alternating grey and white for each senate term. I can try it later. As for an example of what I was speaking of, see List of state leaders in 1990 and List of religious leaders in 1990.


 * Yes, Wiki is very fun when it's new. Then you get old and bitter like me. ;) Just kidding. Working on those tables was great fun, and I look forward to being able to work on them again and fleshing them out. But sometimes it's hard seeing someone work on your baby, but I have to learn to let go - or at least offer constructive criticism. :) --Golbez 19:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Name disambiguation
Re: links on Deleware delegation. I named one of the articles after the one that already existed (even if it is very bad). The Wiki norm seems to be Name (occupation). I felt as you when I first started, see William Bradford for one such effort that I got away with. I also found that every time I used dates I got into discussions with people wanting to correct me, so I gave up and now I go along.

Re: what to use as (occupation). I feel worst chioce is (politician), although (American politician) is still worse. I've used state a number of times, especiaaly when there are multiples with a name (e.g governors). A fairly extensive check can be made using eith political graveyard or the growing nndb. I guess we keep trying... Thanks for the comment,,, Lou I 17:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:TCDuPont.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:TCDuPont.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, ie in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use to release it under the GFDL. If you can claim fair use use .)  See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thanks so much. --Michael 11:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Category note
Just a brief note to explain: I removed your category from Van Dyke since it is circular. Governor of Delaware category has as a parent the category 'Delaware Politicians' which has as a parent 'People from Delaware'. In general, if we point to a more specific category, then we don't need a pointer to the more general category. Thanks, 09:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Delaware Images / Template
No problem, man. I think your are great for contributing, and none of us, least of all me, are perfect. --Mm35173 14:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Image permission
I see that you have uploaded a number of images with the description:
 * "Per Jeff Hague, Registrar of Regulations, Legislative Council, State of Delaware, image is not copyright and is used with permission."

What exactly does this permission entail? Evil Monkey∴Hello 01:35, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Dates as Dab'g qualifiers in titles
_ _ I noticed your edit abt 2 days ago on List of people by name: prefixed Van, where you used a date range to disambiguate article titles, and perhaps the other similar ones i saw were among the places where i've noticed your name. _ _ I think your thoroughness in bypassing even single rdr's that result is admirable, and it's good to see editors attending to missing bios. But i am surprised at your choice of vital stats to distingush people. Sometimes its longer and sometimes shorter than a word or two, but IMO even a four-digit number involves more effort to read and compare than even two or three words that have a natural relationship. Are you choosing that approach based on some recommendation, or is it you own idea? If no one recommended it, what is your reason for using it? Thanks, --Jerzy•t 05:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * At my talk, you answered (reformated by J, as with my own, above):

_ _ Thanks for this very clear response; yes, the Van Dykes are the ones i referred to; it doesn't look like Bradford was another of yours that i noted, since that's not yet within the LoPbN BRs that i'm watching closely. I'll certainly make a point to look soon at your detailed arguements there. (I gather you mean at Talk:William Bradford.) _ _ (BTW, i dunno which of us edits more bios, but i'd be willing to bet i'm in the top 0.1% of editors by amount of attention paid to bio titles. FWIW [grin].) _ _ It certainly is a DBM issue. But (based perhaps only on ignorance of what you've already said beyond the above) i'm inclined to argue that it is wasted energy trying to outthink all the cases in advance: titles are easy to change; due to our redirects, references don't need to be changed (desirable as that is) until they become part of a dbl rdr; and in any case What links here make them easy to trace and to automate the "repair". _ _ Further, IMO it's not just a DBM issue, nor therefore is uniqueness in the name field all that is needed. My impression is that most users, after clicking a lk, next turn their attention to the biggest text at the top of the next page, viz., the title. When following a piped lk, that is arguably wasted effort, but with piped lks (which these will always be, except when followed from MoS-compliant Dab pages) there is a human-factors issue: the Principle of least astonishment.
 * I've given this a good deal of thought and realize that everything else being equal, ultimately what is needed in the name field is for it to be unique. For people, as the inventory gets larger, location or occupation will eventually be the same, especially for common names. I am even running into it my small efforts, see Nicholas Van Dyke, father and son. B/D date will almost never be. This is really a database management issue, not a lookup convenience or data entry issue, although it may not be readily apparent as such to to an individual writer working on just a few people.  This approach is not original to me, but was suggested by another writer who acknowledged it was not the Wikipedia norm and had given up trying to explain, see William Bradford.  Not surprisingly he is an IT professional as well, used to working with large databases.  I hope this helps explain. I have put some other nutty ideas I have about bios on my talk page. I love writing these articles and am learning things everyday.  All of my ideas can be exchanged for your better ones, so your comments are appreciated.  stilltim 02:44, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * [ARRGH! How sweetly bizarre! I just thot i put "Principle of minimum surprise" in the search box, and to watch my reaction, you'd have thot i'd been slapped unexpectedly: the page delivered was Acrophobia (and i'm not going to bother figuring out why). Please take that image as a timely natural metaphor.]

This and some of these are WP-namespace examples of it, but the one i was looking for is Redirect, which discusses a close analog of pipe-lk'd titles. When the title is not the same as what the user clicked on, IMO it should reassure them as much as possible that it isn't an unchecked lk to something that no one has yet dab'd, and that reassurance should be realizable with as little user thot as possible. (Here's a negative example of the principle: within the last couple weeks, i was suspicious to see only one blue lk among an author's many rd-lks to his works, so i clicked on the lk for his novel, which read Zack at that time; it was the title of a rdr to Zack (Final Fantasy VII)! -- a video game fictional character, not a book. _ _ To come back to specifics, a date range amounts to encoded information that is meaningless until decoded, and may not even be helpful when you've converted
 * (1787-1859)

into, say,
 * between the Constitution and secession

(Especially not, if the reader and the subject of the bio are from different countries.) If time periods really are the best choice, a case like my Davey Moore (1960s) and Davey Moore (1980s) (but note that those titles were temporary expedients and deserve reconsideration by someone who knows more about boxing than is contained in "Who Killed Davey Moore?") uses the reader's attention much more efficiently than any pair of four digit numbers can. Or to return to the Van Dyke example we've both mentioned, IIRC "(son)" and "(father)" would probably be more useful (and certainly less demanding), and if and when they are not sufficiently detailed, there's nothing wrong with either "New Hampshire; son", etc., or "politician; son", etc. -- or with "New Hampshire politician; son", etc. when that much distinction becomes necessary. _ _ Finally (for the moment!), as a DBM issue, it is also a human factors issue: picture a user who wants to come back to the same page, from memory, by the shortest feasible path, i.e., without sorting thru the entries on a Dab page again. They may well succeed in remembering whether it said "... New Hampshire; son" or "... politician; son" at the top of the page, but they don't have any chance of remembering the 8-digits-and-hyphen version. And if they come up with the wrong one of those two non-numeric ones, they may well immediately try the other; whether they succeed on the second try, or give up and go thru a Dab page, they may create a redir from the non-existent one to the article one (as i just did from Principle of minimum surprise and from Principle of minimum astonishment, even before it occurred to me that mentioning them would offer a case in point for this discussion.) And BTW, note that even if "politician; son" becomes ambiguous, it will remain useful to those who have remembered it, by automatically turning into a rdr to the old one, when the article is renamed (or maybe into a very-special purpose Dab -- most likely if people misremember the former title of the other bio that is eligible for that title). _ _ Now, i'd be rude to expect you to reply before i've read & responded to the talk you referenced, so i'm not soliciting your reply to this, by writing it before doing my homework. But my getting some response to you written down might be immediately useful to you, and it will actually increase the likely speed of my better informed and probably more complete reply. _ _ (I should remember to keep an eye on yr talk page, if you like continuing to consolidate our discussion in one place here.) --Jerzy•t 05:37, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Redundant categories
My thinking regarding categories is that they are not strictly hierarchical (sp?). But if they were for bios there would at least need to be ones reflecting 1) when they lived, 2) where they lived, and 3) what they did. The last category gets so big it gets qualified by all sorts of things, often location. Such a qualification of the "what" should not require the deletion of the "where," because the articles in the "where" category will be incomplete as a result. While I admit there is some redundancy, with "People of Pennsylvania" when they are also "Pennsylvania politicians" that redundacy is OK because it prevents a serious omission.  I believe this follows Wikipedia standards. I would like to restore a couple you have removed.

stilltim 03:04, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Where people are from is important to who they are, and is important for categorization. I like strictly hierarchical categorization, but I realize that you and others on Wikipedia don't. Someone who is a Senator is clearly a politician. Furthermore, anyone who has read the U.S. Constitution or studied it in school at any level knows that a U.S. Senator from Delaware must, by law, reside in Delaware, and therefore be a person from Delaware. I realize, though, that not everyone who reads the Wikipedia article about a U.S. Senator from Delaware has ever read or studied the U.S. Constitution. I think that having the same person in the "People from x", "Politicians from x", and "U.S. Senators from x" categories is just too many, but I'm not sure which of the first two to give up.


 * Also, it had been (and still is) my intent to go through the rest of the Senate cleaning up categories. Could you tell me what sorts of things you plan to restore, to save both of us extra work?

NatusRoma 03:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Great work on Delaware
...related topics. Keep up the good work.



Take care, Molotov (talk)  21:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: Your important queries
You wrote:
 * 1. Do you have an automated tool that gives you the ability to add or delete things from many articles at the same time? If so, would you be interested in sharing it?

I use the Firefox browser from Mozilla. It's open-source and copyleft, completely free, and the best browser in existance. More to the point, it has a feature called tabbed browsing, allowing a user to have many different pages open in a single window. I use that function alot, especially on Recent Changes and New Pages patrol.


 * 2. What information do I need to supply you with to make you comfortable with the content of the articles I write, so that I may avoid future instances of your deleting significant portions of my work? Please see articles on the Governors of Delaware.

You belittle your own truly amazing work here by saying a single image constitutes a "significant portion." I wish I had the knowledge and writing ability for my home state that you possess in reference to your home state and those who have guided its development.




 * 3. I would be grateful if you could take the time to read my user page, as I have yours, to try and understand my intentions. As I state on it, feedback is appreciated. I recognize my work is not perfect, and am simply experimenting to find ways to produce a better product.

And please continue to expirement, by all means.

But now, the reasoning behind my edits. First, to clarify things for anyone else wondering, I removed the image at left from thirty-five (35) pages mainly dealing with notable Delaware politicians and statesman. In each of those pages, the image at left was located at the beginning of the main section after the table of contents, without fail.

When I first saw this image on one of the pages, I was entirely perplexed by its presence. Initially, I assumed it was a vandal trying to make some sort of statement or to just plain vandalize the page. Digging into the history, however, I saw that the page had not been vandalized, and in fact had largely been written by two individuals, yourself and one other editor. Clicking on the image revealed that it was the state bird of Delaware, and that it was on many similar pages. I immidiately understood that someone was trying to bring all Delaware articles together by introducing the theme of the state bird. However, there are specific and significant problems with including it on the pages:


 * As is (just the bird), to the uninitiated (or in other words, most of the readers of the page) it is frankly confusing. One shouldn't have to click on multiple things to gather the significance of an edit.


 * So lets say you thumbnail the image and explain what it is. Even then, it is still confusing.  One would be wondering, for instance, why the state bird is on Joe Biden's page: did he choose it?  Did he cast a pivotol vote in its selection? etc.  The answer is, naturally, no, so to rectify the situation you'd need to explain even further: "This is the state bird of Delaware and it's on Delaware related pages."  Then it just gets in the way and distracts from the article.


 * Including an image on any article that does not somehow have something directly to do with the image is not encyclopedic in the traditional or wiki sense. Indeed, your strategic inclusion of the flag, seal, shield etc. of Delaware (and occasionally other states) through all of your Delaware bios are also thoroughly confusing - what purpose do they serve?

I understand what you are trying to do, and it is logical for a website, but not an encyclopedia. What you can do is create a Wikiproject with Delaware as the focus, and use the bird as the symbol. Then the bird will be on all project related talk pages, which is perfectly acceptable.

However, upon further inspection of the issue as I was removing the images, I noticed that the copyright info wasn't in line with what is acceptable for Wikipedia. The image page specifically states the website from which the image came - this is good. The problem is, the image is copyrighted to somebody - if its not the webpage's owner, than to whomever took the picture, and inclusion of the whole image does not constitute fair use under any circumstances. As a result, it is not allowed on wikipedia at all (until such time that the original owner releases it to the public domain/the GDFL/Creative Commons, or current copyleft status can be definitively confirmed). And even then, it would only be appropriate on articles about the animal, the state, and state birds in general.

I hope you see what I was trying to do here, both in terms of cutting down on potential confusion, staying in line with encyclopedic standards, and following the new stricter rules of image use laid down by Jimbo, and by no means did I intend harm to "your work" (though you should already know by now that the nature of the Project means that someone, somewhere, will eventually edit the pages you have created).

A suggestion I have for you that will greatly improve your articles is removing all those little, unexplained images (the flags and shields and seals) - they will make your articles easier to read, and bring them in line with the rest of Wikipedia.

I cannot stress enough the importance of your presence on the Project, and I hope this does not discourage you in any way. I hope you have a good night, --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Succession box use
I'd like to make a comment about your use of the succession box template on the Caesar Rodney article for his service in the Continental Congress. I considered and discarded the idea of doing this when the boxes first began to appear. My reasoning was: Delegates were generally appointed by a resolution in the state assembly, with a single resolution naming a slate of delegates. There usually isn't a tracable "A replaced B" kind of logic to it. We do have boxes for the presiding officers that I can live with, but I'd ilke to discourage them for delegates. What do you think? Reply here or my talk page, thanks,, Lou I 16:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. You can answer here since I've added your talk page to my watch list. Most of the times I've done this with a user's page, I drop it when any discussion goes quiet for two or three weeks. You just click the 'watch' tab when viewibng a talk page. LouI


 * Re. Personality descriptions: I agree that we'd be better if we had these, but I've had some trouble with these, and even physical descripions. There is a tendency for some editors to disagree with anything you might say. We are woefully missing almost any humanizng material in biographies. In fourteeen screens worth of Thomas Jefferson article we never mention that he was moderately taall, thui, or red-haired. The only way I've found that stands up to objections is to look for a quote thst contains a description. Adams diaries, Jefferson, Jay, and Adams letters are a good source for these. I can't see that it is better the report that 'John Adams, in a letter to his wife, described Jefferson as a man of "impressive height and bearing with bright red hair".' I can just write that he had red hair. But someone will strike it as an opinion. LouI


 * I have no good way to keep Succession boxes from wrapping. I have a bad (brute force) way, simplty code the underlying html table directly and you can set width yourself. I've only used it on a bx that seriouly annoyed me. Good luck, and if you find a better method, let me know. Thanks... Lou I 16:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Committee of 100 (Delaware)
Thought you might be interested in contributing to this new article. --Briangotts | (Talk) 16:27, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Delaware image category
Hi. Just curious if you had plans for the Category:Delaware Government images category you created? If not, I'll probably list for deletion since it's empty. wknight94 19:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

The Movement
What does this one think of the movement? --Kin Khan 02:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Anglican userbox
Hi, it may interest you to know there is now an Anglican userbox. It's  . --Angr (t·c) 09:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The userboxes are mostly for fun. Sort of like bumper stickers for your user page. You're certainly under no obligation to use them, but some people like them. Of course Episcopalians are Anglicans, and certainly feel it's redundant to have both Category:Anglican Wikipedians and Category:Anglican and Episcopalian Wikipedians. I created A&E WPians in September, and User:Celestianpower created Anglican WPians in October, presumably without being aware the A&E WPians already existed. I guess I used the more inclusive name not because Episcopalians aren't Anglicans, but because many aren't aware that they are (thanks to U.S. parochialism). There are a lot of teenagers on Wikipedia, and I think a lot of teenaged Episcopalians in the U.S. don't realize their church is part of something bigger that uses the name "Anglican". I certainly didn't when I was a teenager. If we do ultimately have just one Anglican Wikipedian category, I don't think it's necessary to subcategorize it further. There aren't that many Anglican Wikipedians in the first place, and even Category:Baptist Wikipedians and Category:Wikipedians in the Baptist church (another redundancy that ought to be resolved) isn't divided up into Southern Baptists, American Baptists, National Baptists, etc., etc. --Angr (t·c) 13:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delaware Userbox

 * It's not a problem that you changed the userbox. I was actually waiting to see how long it could be up like that before someone decided to standardize it with the other State userboxes.  I think you are looking for something like this.
 * Try messing around with the parameters to change the colors, font, etc as needed. I'm going to change the Delaware flag so that it takes up less width.  After I make that change, you may need to change the 80px to something like 60px.  Enjoy! --R6MaY89 20:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * 


 * I saw that you implemented the code on Template:User_Delaware so I changed it there to make the flag less fat. I moved my version to Template:User_Delaware2 so that I could still use it. --R6MaY89 01:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Web-screenshot tag
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. I've noticed you've uploaded some images tagged with web-screenshot. This tag is not meant to be used for images that came from Web pages; it's meant to be used for images of Web pages (such as Image:Google screenshot.png, for example). I've retagged the images below as having no license information. Please make sure that Wikipedia has permission to use these images. Then edit the image description pages to include information about the licenses these images are under. You may find an appropriate tag at Image copyright tags or Template messages, or if none of these fit you may write a description of the license yourself. You may want to refer to the image use policy. If the use of this image on Wikipedia is a copyright violation, please follow the steps at Images and media for deletion to nominate this image to be deleted. If you have any questions, please feel free to post a message on my talk page. —Bkell 20:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Image:Mattdenn.jpg – There's a good chance this is provided under some free license, if it was created by the State of Delaware.

Willard Saulsbury, Jr.
Why did you revert my edit to sort this stub into a more specific stub category? FYI, it is the policy of WP:WSS to sort stubs into the most specific stub category possible and Category:Delaware politician stubs is a daughter cat of Category:Delaware stubs.--Carabinieri 23:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Stilltim, just a question. I saw this tag on the new article John Hunn (1818–1894). I've never seen it before and was wondering if it is part of a project? My first thought is that it belongs on the talk page, not in the article, but I was just wondering. Cheers.--Bookandcoffee 21:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah I think you're right about the potential of this place, but I know there's been quite a bit of talk about Wikipedia self-reference. Avoid self-references and Wikipedia talk:Template messages, so I think you might find some resistance to the idea. That said, it's worth exploring ways to engage people, and I like the thought about advising vandals. (BTW, I stole the "leave mssg." idea from someone else, but now I can't even remember who! It's handy, and it keeps newbies from leaving messages on my user page. :) --Bookandcoffee 22:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Ruth
 Referencing you recent edits.
 * I reverted your change to the infobox. It seems to me the generic politician infobox is to be prefered to one that is organized around one particular office. Most politicians, including Minner, have served in several offices, and I think their infobox should reflect that. Furthermore, I think the infoboxes ought to be consistent for all politicians. The Governor box or the Senator box just doesn't do justice to such office holders if they have done something else- and most have. Additionally, I do not think it very useful to repeat information that is very clearly stated in the succession box nearby, nor is it sometimes possible to reliably state that a person is the "25th Governor." At least in Delaware there are several equally legitimate ways to count. The one thing I don't like about the infobox I use is the size of the picture. Not being a programmer, I do not know how to make the picture bigger, and would like to. Your assistance in that way would be much appreciated. I hope you don't mind my doing this, but I have given this infobox matter a great deal of thought before reaching these conclusions.


 * I have left the needs attention notice in place because I would appreciate more specific information. It seems to me that what is lacking in this article is considerably more detail about her positions. Frankly I had hoped that people with more knowledge of them than I would flesh that out, at least until I found a reliable source to do it myself. Eventually I will add it. But that sort of information would be in the top 1/3 of the article. In the bottom 2/3 I have added all kinds of things I don't see anywhere else. Is that what you think needs attention? Do you believe that information should not be included, needs to be expanded in some way, or just needs to be presented in another way? I acknowledge I have done some things no one else is doing, but think I am being consistent with Wiki policy while exercising some "boldness" that might result in a general improvement of all articles.

Your thoughts and opinions on these things are of great interest to me, as I am truly seeking to produce the best article possible. In fact, this article is getting lots of attention from me and if you have some ideas we can agree on, I will make the changes.

stilltim 12:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC) &mdash; F REAK OF N URxTURE  ( [ TALK ] )  12:50, Jan. 14, 2006
 * 1) The ordinal number was a human error.  I believe it should have read 72nd.
 * 2) Some of your comments suggest a disregard for the policy against Ownership of articles.
 * 3) The lower part of the article appears rather disorderly and could use a some work, which wasn't what I came to do.
 * 4) I don't think the information is bad, but yes, it would benefit from a cleaner, more uniform presentation.
 * 5) Although I'm sure you mean well, the "Add your organization if you have information on this subject available to the public" message, at best, is unencyclopedic, and at worst is an invitation for link-spammers.
 * 6) The template you reverted to unnecessarily contains other nested templates.  Please read Avoid using meta-templates.
 * 7) When Ms. Minner leaves office, changing to a generic Template:Infobox Politician might be appropriate.
 * 8) Spouse (as used in the other 30+ articles I've added this template to thusfar) is understood to mean "current spouse" as it replaces the "first lady/gentleman" parameter used previously.
 * 9) Naming two spouses, then, implies that she's a bigamist, when she's actually a double widow.
 * 10) Most current governors of U.S. states have, in fact, held other offices previously. This template is intended for active governors.  See the pre-emptive text for [ Jon Corzine], who will become New Jersey Governor in four days.

templates
Do not create template forks. If you have a concern or a function you'd like to see, discuss it on the talk page of the template in question. Do not go on your own and create a too-specific template. This leads to drift over time. For example, there are no less than 42 templates for universities, which can and should be able to fit into one common template. Going back and cleaning up this is rarely the job of the creator of those extra templates, so you just make more work for other people. -- Netoholic @ 06:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I do have a concern with the office-specific Governor and Senator templates. At last check they did not adequately handle the problem of persons holding multiple offices, particularly historical figures such as Thomas McKean. You are obviously aware that I have slightly modified the Governor infobox and made it generic and somewhat flexible. It is intended to be a demonstration that the presentation you seek in the G/S templates is possible in a template equally useful for historical people. Nothing would please me more than to join the community in developing and adopting such a template, and I have so stated.
 * Because I much prefer to concentrate my limited free time on research and building content, it seems I have not learned all the proper ways to illustrate and advocate improvements. Your friendly assistance and guidance would be much appreciated. I will try and find the proper places to note these points. stilltim 11:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * And, as I said, if you think a template does not meet your needs, post on the talk page of the template that you are thinking about forking. Infoboxs, to a large extent, are not meant to be flexible.  The templates are designed and intended to prominently display the person's highest level of office.  The infobox is not a replacement for information that should appear elsewhere in the article.  It is a summary.  Pretend it isn't even there when writing the article, then you or someone else can take the relevant information and summarize it into an infobox.  To document all of their offices, use separate section at the end of the article, where you can devote a full, appropriate amount of space it.  Use succession boxes. -- Netoholic @ 12:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response. Please see the Template talk:Infobox_Governor for my early morning thinking. I appreciate your serious consideration of my points. stilltim 12:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Delaware House template
Tim, (FYI) I am deleting the template DelawareUSHouse. All the articles use Template:DelawareUSH. Since no other state (perhaps Vermont or RI? )is likely to use a house member template, I dont forsee any general objections to the USH template name. If you have a concern, let me know on my talk page or e-mail. Thanks for your good work, Lou I 18:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Biography stuff
To be honest, I had forgotten about our previous conversation about the succession boxes and assumed they were simply placed up where they were accidentally, thus I moved them down by reflex. I also like how the generic politician infobox has evolved, although I don't like that changes were made to the template and then not implemented in articles that already contained the template by the person who changed the template. -- tomf688 {talk} 23:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Du Pont family
Hi Stilltim,

My concern about the genealogical information was that it contained many people who were not notable. I don't think simply being a member of the DuPont family is notable in itself. My view was that it was an indiscriminate collection of information. But, I could be wrong. We can discuss it on the talk page, and you could put in a RfC to get other user's opinions. --JW1805 (Talk) 00:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikimeetup Delaware
I've "officially" announced the meetup, as we had discussed. See Meetup/Newark Raul654 06:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Biden and dealing with bad edits
One way of dealing with persistent vandalism could be semi-protection of Biden article (like George_W._Bush). I still think that enough people have Biden on their watchlist and are able quickly revert vandalism, and it doesn't become such a problem. feydey 13:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

succession box at Thomas McKean
I'm not sure why you keep moving the succession box to the middle of the article. Wikipedia convention is to put this at the bottom. --JW1805 (Talk) 01:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * There needs to be a consistent look to all the articles. Every other article with a secession box has it at the bottom.  It doesn't make any sense to put in the middle.  --JW1805 (Talk) 03:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I've put a post on Village pump (policy) to see if we can get some other comments on where seccession boxes should be. Your comments are welcome there as well.  --JW1805 (Talk) 03:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Deleware templates
We seem to have two Delaware templates Template:DEHistory and Template:Delaware. They are being used inconsistently. The main Delaware template should be the one on the Delaware page, since that is the one that has the division into cities and counties. The History template (which doesn't really have anything to do with history) seems to be showing up on articles about people from Delaware. This really isn't the function of a template like this. If the template doesn't contain a link to the article, in shouldn't be in that article. We shouldn't have every article about an American include the state template of whatever state they were from. It would be better, I think, I merge some of the links into the main Delaware template.--JW1805 (Talk) 03:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Meetup reminder
Just a reminder that there will be a meetup in Newark, DE, this saturday at 3:00 PM. (Since people have complained after previous meetups that they had forgotten about it, this message is going to everyone listed on Meetup/Newark) Raul654 15:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Follow-up to the meetup
See Copyright FAQ (which I wrote). In particular:


 * Taking a work in the public domain and modifying it in a significant way creates a new copyright on the work. For instance, the Homecoming Saga by Orson Scott Card is a re-telling of the Book of Mormon. Therefore, the books in the Homecoming series can be copyrighted.
 * However, the new work must be different from the original in order for a new copyright to apply, as the court ruled in Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corporation.
 * The Bridgeman Art Library had made photographic reproductions of famous works of art from museums around the world (works already in the public domain.) The Corel Corporation used those reproductions for an educational CD-ROM without paying Bridgeman. Bridgeman claimed copyright infringement. The Court ruled that reproductions of images in the public domain are not protected by copyright if the reproductions are slavish or lacking in originality. In their opinion, the Court noted: "There is little doubt that many photographs, probably the overwhelming majority, reflect at least the modest amount of originality required for copyright protection.... But 'slavish copying', although doubtless requiring technical skill and effort, does not qualify." Raul654 10:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I think I had seen this note, but in view of the importance of getting it right wanted to see or hear explicitly that this applied to photographs of 2 dimensional PD pictures included in a recently published work with a recent copyright.


 * The meetup was a wonderful afternoon for me and I very much appreciate being included. You are to be highly commended for your work and, for what it's worth, I am very impressed with the knowledge and wisdom of all the members of the group. Please call on me if there is anything I can do to assist you...as I will certainly be seeking your advice. (Is this the right way to respond? please confirm.) stilltim 21:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Help with templates
I've gotten myself, inadvertantly, into a Revert War with User:Jack Cox over the format of governors' templates. See the histories of, for example, MAGovernors, NYGovernors, and DEGovernors. I believe that font-size 90% is sufficient, but he is adding as well. He reverts me with ALL CAPS in the edit summaries that my way is ugly. I've replied that his way is too small, and inconsistent with other templates, such as US Presidents, etc. (See, for example, the bottom of article on Franklin Roosevelt. He has modified the templates for the governors of all the states.  Can you help me with a message on his talk page?  You'll find mine there already (User talk:Jack Cox).  If you disagree with me, of course, please reply here or on my talk page.  Thank you.  &mdash;Markles 19:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

John Dickinson (1732–1808)
I noticed this article, and thought that it would be good to move it to John Dickinson (lawyer). Then a look at he history showed that you had moved John Dickinson (lawyer) to John Dickinson (1732-1808). Naming conventions (people) recommends avoiding numbers in article names for people. Think of an editor adding a link to another article. Would it be easier to type "(lawyer)" or "(1732–1808)" with an endash? I think the second case would be more prone to mistakes. Of course, (delegate) or (governor) might be better than (lawyer), since John is not remembered for his work in the courtroom as much as in Congress. I had planned to rename the other guy to John Dickinson (inventor). Would it make you hopping mad if I renamed (moved) these articles? If not, what qualifier do you think would be best? Chris the speller 16:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I wouldn't be hopping mad, especially since you were kind enough to discuss it first. Using dates as a qualifier is intentional, as I think they are the most specific, least arbitrary, and follow the practice used in most published encycolpedias. They are particularly useful when you get the same name, same profession, same residence, etc.- a frequent occurrence with uncles/nephews/cousins.  The larger WP gets the more likely it is that these situations will appear.  So in order to be consistent, I have tried to use this approach if there was not some middle name or suffix distinguisher. There is considerable debate in the WP community about this, and there are obviously good points to be made all around, but I think more and more the thinking is moving in the date direction. I think that most people use the copy/paste to create links- rather than typing it out. I also have a concern that if one person creates a John Dickinson (lawyer) article, another may go and create a John Dickinson (delegate) article without knowing they were the same. I have seen several instances of this. The dates are unlikely to be as easily confused.  So, I would ask you to leave it, and others you see as is, and recognize the naming convention recommendation reflects the thinking of a much less comprehensive database than exists now.


 * If you know where the considerable debate is, please point it out (I'll watch this section), and I will get involved in it. For now, I will leave John alone, as you ask. Just don't get angry at the next editor who follows the guideline and leaps before he looks (or asks). The (lawyer)/(delegate) split can be avoided by adding a redirect at (delegate). I could get behind the dates better if there were more than two people, or if they were born and died in different centuries, but until the guidelines change, I don't think disambiguating using the dates should be the first resort. Chris the speller 17:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Your concern about my getting angry makes me wonder if I might have a reputation. The courtesy and knowledge shown by your comments are the best antidote to any potential anger- and I thank you for indulging me. The conversation I refer to connects above on this page and there are examples. My intent is to produce a quality product, as I know yours is, and I don't pretend to have any exclusive intelligence on these issues. Like my friend who worked on William Bradford, I am willing to let it go. In any case, I can assure you, I will not be angry. stilltim 19:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Nothing about reputation, just recognizing the tendency towards a feeling of ownership that some editors have after they put a lot of work into an article (even though we should not). I often check with major contributors to an article before renaming, for that reason and for the reason that they might have good judgment about what would make a better article name. I have renamed quite a few articles from date qualifiers to professions, and haven't had any fights yet. Jerzy (above) makes some good points against using dates, I think. It would take a consensus (more than you and LouI) to overturn the present guidelines, but your user page is not the best place to build such a consensus, and I am confident that the opposition would be considerable, if not formidable. And this is coming from a DBA, data modeler and database designer. John Dickinson makes a pretty good poster child for the avoidance of numbers, but I am leaving it alone for now as promised, but I still plan to bulldoze others where it seems the editors just wanted a mechanism that allowed them not to think very hard about good article names. All the best, and happy editing! Chris the speller 21:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

THANK YOU
I would like to commend you for all of the work that you have done with the Wikipedia articles involving the State of Delaware. I would love to do the same thing with the people of West Virginia, but I don't have the time. Byrdin2006 23:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Fiftieth United States Congress & Fifty-first United States Congress
I LOVE what you're doing with the 50th and 51st Congresses!&mdash;Markles 15:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, It's nice to hear something positive. I thought I had 10 Congresses all ready to go, but the detail at the end is much harder than I thought, particularly meeting some of the particulars of the 109 template- like the seniority/district sort.

Here's some ideas, per 109th Congress standard: &mdash;Markles 20:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Delegates at large

 * Don't need "A/L" for delegates at-large.
 * I wondered about the A/L note too- and will take it out

Birth/death dates

 * Avoid the birth-death dates. They're just unnecessary to this article.
 * I like the birth/death dates. There are an awful lot of people here with like names- and that's the best way to quickly tell them apart. The are not in the way, and I believe are very necessary when trying to figure which John Brown might be referenced.
 * I don't think they're necessary unless, perhaps, they're for a redlinked name.&mdash;Markles 10:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Can we remove the birth-death dates for blue-lined names as they become blue-linked? (Such as 7 of the 12 Reps from Massachusetts in Forty-second United States Congress) &mdash;Markles 22:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC) Well? What do you think? I think the dates are excessive, especially when they're unnecessary. &mdash;Markles 21:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree. They are neither excessive nor unnecessary. They are often very useful in making identifications, as discussed above, there is plenty of room, and cosmetically they look fine. The point of an index- which this really is- (or nav box) is to make it easy for the reader to find the subject they are looking for without taking extra steps, like reading three or four articles, or doing another search in a browser (re alpha argument on nav box). Regarding the idea to do it partially, it would be very difficult to delete dates for linked names only and would look strange at that. It's really one way or the other. I've taken them out on some articles, temporarily, to see the result, and frankly saw no improvement. I don't understand your reasoning for making such an issue of this. I am giving you substantive reasons why they should be there, please show me some equally substantive reasons why they should not be there...or let it rest. stilltim 01:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

States as section headers

 * States/Territories ought to be section headings
 * I don't mind the States/Territories being section headings, so much as I like the readability of them being indented and in the font they show in as I have them. Is there a way to do this without making the states look just like the chamber? If so, tell me and I'll make it so.
 * They don't look too bad on my OS/browser/skin combination, although they are similar. I think we should keep them as section headers and suggest to some of the wiki programers that they make "==" and "===" section headers look more different.  Can you change them back in the 50th Congress? &mdash;Markles 15:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It's the "====" (four equals) that are not different from the "===" (three equals). The two and three are fine. If you can get whoever to make the four equals do another indent, that would be a perfect solution. I agree the font is not as important, and I'm OK with them being section headers. I think the readability of the article is more important than the TOC, though, because this section of the article is itself really just an index, and most will use it rather than the TOC. But we ought to be able to do both the way we want.
 * I'm sure you understand that I am building all this off-line and just pasting it into the article. Hence when updating anything, I have to repaste everything. So when I find redirects, correct mistakes, or learn more info, the changes go back into my off-line template or database. This updates all the lists automatically. It would never get done otherwise. So, see what you can do with the programming, let me know the result, and I will build it into my off-line template. I haven't learned the nocks and crannies well enough to know how to ask the question.
 * Also, I'm not happy with the way the special date notes look and will be experimenting a bit. Your feedback would be appreciated, plus I really want your specific guideline for what dates or portion should be wikified. Also, do you think there should be fourth list, strictly alpha, regardless of chamber or party. I have thought not, but could build and maintain it or any other combination easily if you or others would like.stilltim 16:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Lame ducks

 * That whole lame-duck discussion seems excessive as it will be in most other ordinal congress articles. Can we just say "lame duck" but leave it in quotes? Those sessions are widely considered to be lame duck sessions, and they were the impetus behind the Twentieth Amendment.
 * I am familiar with the Twentieth Amendment. The "lame duck" phrase has a negative POV implication that implies a problem to modern ears, but was not so much of an issue in another time. Hence the desire to explain the facts. I agree the explanation is long and would be OK with a simple "lame duck" following rather in the too prominent middle position, like "Second session: December 1, 1890 to March 2, 1891 — a lame duck session."

Date linking

 * Can you wikilink the dates when individual Reps/Senators left/took office?
 * I can build the links for any dates very easily in my DB, but frankly am thoroughly confused with your criteria for what dates to link and not to link. (ref your changes to the Joe Biden article). I could care less what the answer is, but would like a clear spec that addresses months/days & years.

TOC vertical space

 * no vertical space before
 * OK, with the TOC, that was just me being sloppy- or learning

Linking to censuses

 * link to the Census article as such: Tenth Census in 1880 (omit "United States" from piped link).
 * I will link the Census as you want, but there is no article for the Tenth Census, so it leaves this horrible red mark at the head of the article. Why don't you create a stub for all the missing censuses, and I'll do as you ask.
 * Done! I created stubs for all the remaining census articles.  what's more, Tenth United States Census redirects to United States Census, 1880.  I haven't yet made redirects for the others, though.&mdash;Markles 22:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Also
Markles, you sure are watching me closely...I'm not sure how to take it!? I'm happy to team up with you on getting this stuff done- we obviously have lots of interests in common. I appreciate you taking my concerns seriously and can assure that when you do I will be very flexible and easy to work with- and we will get a lot of good content built. I have to keep reminding myself that's the point of the exercise, not some of the silliness we get tangled up in. stilltim 20:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not watching you (don't worry). I'm just keeping up with the Congress stuff. &mdash;Markles 22:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

USCongresses
Why are you creating a manual table at the bottom of the Congresses, when there's a template at USCongresses? And, for that matter, have you decided not to make these Congresses the same format as the 109th?&mdash;Markles 21:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Why do you write with that tone? I have waited for your response to my numerous questions, and hearing none, have assumed you had no preference, and proceeded. I am following the 109 to the extent that it is consistent with itself, where not I stayed consistent as previously noted. Don't you think the table is an improvement over the template? Trying to be courteous, I didn't want to change the template until receiving feedback.stilltim 21:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * SORRY-- REALLY SORRY! I'm really not good at leaving these messages.  I really didn't mean to express myself like that.  I thought I had replied to you already, I'm sorry if I left some out.  Feel free to change the template if you'd like to.  That's the Wiki way, right?  I really do love the work you're doing here!!!&mdash;Markles 23:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Shading colors
Hey Stilltim! Hi there. Look what I've done with List of United States Representatives from Delaware. I've just added shading templates. Is this OK? This should make your work easier with similar articles. You can find most of the templates here: Category:Party colours templates. &mdash;Markles 10:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Good morning Markles. Yes, this is a very nice addition and will reduce the labor and help with standardization. The only downside is that when the data is coming from a template, some yahoo will inevitably decide to change the template and effectively vandalize all the articles. But maybe this is sufficiently esoteric that it will escape their attention. BTW are you a Brit? I figured you were from Boston. stilltim 11:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Sessions of Congress
Your template, US Congress Sessions, needs to be changed. A "session" of the US Congress is a specific term meaning a time between commencement and adjournment. You would have to say "Congresses." &mdash;Markles 21:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed, the term is imprecise, but it seems to be used in this context as well, see Category:United States Congress by session, as well as in some US Gov publications. I will change it. stilltim 22:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Your edits of "sessions of congress"
It disturbs me that you remove kilobytes of text at a time without leaving a reason. please stop.--Frenchman113 on wheels! 22:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, just replacing text with a template, no change in presentation or content. I'll add a note. stilltim 22:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

List of Governors of Delaware
While bumping my way around Wikipedia, I found the List of Governors of Delaware. I notice that you have done much work on that page. This is just my opinion, but I think that if the political parties (if aappropriate) of the Governors in the Presidents under the Constitution of 1776 is filled out, this would make an excellent candidate to become a Featured lists.

PS: Your talk page is quite lengthy. You may want to consider archiving part of it. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I concur with the Featured lists suggestion! &mdash;Markles 23:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'd be glad to add whatever would be appropriate, but these folks did not belong to a party. Would you like to see the column dropped? Or "none" perhaps in the column? I'll read up on how to archive. stilltim 02:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think your changes are good. Do you want to nominate it? Or should I? If you nominate it I'll be sure to support it. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 20:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You may if you wish. I very much appreciate your positive feedback, but am not really into the competitive aspects of this. And I fear the greater exposure to those out there who will nit-pic it to death.  stilltim 22:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I nominated it as you suggested. BTW, there is no need to fear the exposure of getting it featured. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. I'm always willing to help. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd also like to thank you for your assistance in resolving objections in the nomination. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 19:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

List of counties in Delaware
I have put back the FIPS codes in the list of counties of Delaware because I am attempting to include them in every state's list of counties. (Some states have not yet been completed, but I'm working on it as I go along.) I think you should have looked at the FIPS state list before simply changing Delaware's county list page to only a link to the state list because the county list does not appear in the state list. This would (eventually) cause Delaware to be the only state that does not have its own county FIPS code list if this was not fixed. I am changing every state's county list to include this information as I think it is relevant to county lists. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) 21:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I did look and I do see what you are doing. I know your intentions are good and you are putting hard work into this effort, but the point I was trying to make is that if you think this information is important enough to include in WP, and I would not argue that point, it would be better to build a FIPS county list in addition to or as part of the state list. There are undoubtedly hundreds of codes that apply to each county for various purposes and they all may be important, but obviously can't all be displayed on every list of the counties. There is no problem with having a note directing the reader to an article with some or all of these codes, but, meaning no disrespect, to give this particular code the prominence your design has done makes this seem to be primarily an article about FIPS codes rather than the larger objective of the article which is simply to provide basic high level information about the counties, how they came to be, and a link to more detailed information. Please consider enlarging the FIPS state code article or creating a FIPS county article instead of piggybacking onto the county list articles. I think the end product will be much superior. I am also concerned about the massive proliferation of navigation boxes on all articles. The US counties navigation box you added is completely redundant to a perfectly functional Category:Lists of U.S. counties that can be accessed from the line below. There is, therefore, no need for this nav box. stilltim 21:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Joe Biden article
I just wanted to thank you for keeping the Joe Biden article under control. It looks like it's a bit hairy in the discussions. -- × × × jijin+machina | Chat Me! ×× × -- 14:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion
Hello! I noticed that you have identified yourself as an Anglican, and so I thought that you may be interested in checking out a new WikiProject - WikiProject Anglicanism. Please consider signing up and participating in this collaborative effort to improve and expand articles related to Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion! Cheers! Fishhead64 23:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Source for political party information in Congress entries
Thanks so much for adding so much material to the entries for the particular Congresses. This is really impressive.

I'm curious about what source for poltical parties you're using. Is it Martis's Historical Atlas of Parties in Congress or something else?


 * Thanks for your comment. It means a lot to get positive feedback. I'm trying to make sure I like the exact format before adding other Congresses, which I can easily do. The party counts come from the US Congress . Perhaps I should footnote that. BTW, I would appreciate it if you would sign your notes in the future so I get to know who you are. Its nice to know who your friends are! stilltim 21:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Ordinal congresses
I'm going to stop messing up your very good contributions to the early congresses. However, here's a boilerplate template I've created: WikiProject U.S. Congress/Ordinal congresses. Hope it helps! Keep up the great work! —Markles 19:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your desire not to be "messing up...[my] contibutions." It is hard to work on something as complex as this with no base line to work from. It is my expressed desire to establish that, and I have no illusions that my preferences are more valid than yours or the community in general. Therefore, while I hope to convince you (and others) that my ideas are the good, I hope I am flexible enough to incorporate the good points of others. In such an attempt, at one time or other, I have incorporated nearly every suggestion you have made, and honestly want your input- but do ask that you equally strongly consider my points, and once agreed to, support the agreement. Frankly, no one else in the wikiworld seems to be watching this work, or care enough to comment.


 * Regarding your template, I'm not sure how it can be useful to me. Obviously, I have a template I am using off-line to pull in the data and manipulate it. I'm certainly not typing all these names. Hence all those awful spaces which while invisible to the reader, are messy- and I will clean up at some point. I do have a few formatting concerns from looking at the template, some major, some minor. Here they are.
 * 1. Major- there is no standard lead paragraph. Every good article should have one, and if they are similar articles, the same information should be presented in an identical manner.
 * 2. Major- the nav boxes at the end are horrific. Too, big too many, and largely redundant. The nav box we previously agreed upon may not be perfect, but it is small enough, and looks much less amateurish. I'm sure it can be improved, but I think the nav box situation in all WP articles has become a major problem. Most need to go, and the remainders need to be cleaned up- big time. Much of their purpose can be achieved through work on categories. I need your help with this particularly.
 * 3. Major- The party summary in a table is way out of place in an otherwise line article. For cosmetic reasons we have to go one way or the other. That's why I'm putting the membership changes on another article, maybe the party summary table should be handled the same way. Now if we could find a way to create a pie chart and incorporate it as an image- that would be real nice, as would some good maps, but no boxes. Those things are on my to do list. Any suggestions? The "busy look" you observed on one version of the 1st Congress was exactly right, and resulted from mixing tables and line data.
 * 4. Major- (slightly out of scope) The major events and major legislation sections are sadly lacking. A bullet list of random items is not nearly good enough. In fact, these sections should be the meat of the article, written as narrative, and the list simply an attachment.
 * 5. Major- (but out of scope) The articles on the Congressmen are mostly awful. It's all I can do not to get off on a tangent and try and clean them up to a consistent standard.
 * 6. Less critical- We have to use the same terminology as the Congress. They call the non-elected officers, officials, not employees. They call the Vice President the "Vice President," not the President of the Senate. I thought we had reached a good middle ground on that, although I would prefer the later be gone.
 * 7. Least critical- The names of leadership and officials have to go on their own line if there are more than one. Therefore, since it happens often, we should always place them that way, otherwise it is confusing and IMO, ugly.
 * 8. Minutiae- A) The MOS recommends not using links in section headers. B) the Major Legislation "main article" title can be cleaned-up.


 * I'm sure you've noticed I've dropped the dates at your specific request, although I think it is a major loss. It seems, for now, you and I are the ones that are going to get this project done, so I am doing my best to work with you and look forward to a real cooperative effort as we go forward. Are you going to Wikimania? I might...and it would be good to meet you. stilltim 20:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Joe Biden: Indian Controversy
Would you please tell me why you removed the part I inserted into Joseph Biden's article about the Indian-American comments he made? I am not sure what rule that paragraph broke. If your reasoning is that the paragraph contained information widely available on the Internet, I will put it back. We don't simply reference people to outside sources. Instead, we do our own versions of a story while crediting sources. I'd appreciate if you could follow up on this. Stiles 23:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Your prompt response to my question is appreciated, and while your reasoning is certainly understandable, it is not in accordance with accepted practice on Wikipedia. Many other articles feature information, whether seeminly minute or not, and present them to the reader.  As editors, we don't evaluate the weight of a given story, but rather its notability.  That notability is determined by its presence in the news, amongst other factors.  The Biden remarks have been reported by many news agencies, and they have also attracted the attention of several Indian-American organizations.  Not only that, the remarks have been on the minds of many Indian-Americans.  We can't omit information, simply because a politician has been in hot water many times over, and that this may result in an article containing many similar stories.  The fact that Biden has is criticised often times does not change the fact what happened is of interest to many, and is of notable nature.  If you disagree with this, please raise awareness of what I wrote, and as Wikipedians, we'll be able to consider the matter on the talk page of the article.  If it turns out the majority sees what I wrote as being entirely unnecessary, although certainly not in the eyes of those news agencies which have already featured the story, the piece will be removed.  In the mean time, I will add the piece once again.  Thank you. Stiles 01:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

9th United States Congress
—Markles 04:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Honorifics- I took them out because keeping them in would mean we should also put "Hon." before Congressmen's names or "Sen." before Senator's, etc.. I figure we just need names here.
 * Abbreviated party designations- In the current congress (109th), we just use "D" and "R". It seems excessive to the eyes to have "Federalist" and "Democratic-Republican" repeated all over the screen when a simple "F" and "D-R" will suffice.  If, and when, a party is rare, it could be spelled out fully in those few cases.
 * Extra spaces - Why did you revert the entire article? I had deleted a lot of extra spaces.
 * Running out of disk space - There's no point in putting in excessive information. It takes a while for slow computers to read long files (see Article size) and it's hard for a reader to find the information they want if there's too much extraneous repetitions.
 * Delegates - linking to Orleans Territory brings the reader to United States Congressional Delegations from Orleans Territory. I have just changed it.

WikiProject Biography July Newsletter
The July 2006 issue of the Biography WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. plange 08:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:BustGeorgeClinton.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:BustGeorgeClinton.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 01:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * oops, now added...stilltim 01:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Biography Newsletter August 2006
The August 2006 issue of the Biography WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. plange 01:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi,

I increased the size of the Trumbull picture in the McKean article because I wanted to add the location of McKean in the picture and wanted people to see it. (I just added that info, although I don't think it was there when you shrunk back the picture size. I suppose a reader could just as well increase the size of the thumbnail if they wanted. Is there a particular reason you shrunk the size back to that picture? Would it be all right to leave it larger? Best, Noroton 23:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC) (Noroton)

Question about photo source
Hello, I am trying to locate the archival copy of this photo you uploaded of the Old Brick Capitol for reproduction in a book. http://www.pddoc.com/photohistory/v7/images/2004-077b.jpg Can you tell me where you found the image? Yours is the only one I've been able to locate.

Thanks very much, Laura McGuire


 * It is in the "The Photographic History of the Civil War" on-line. Just drop the "images/2004-077b.jpg" from the url you have. stilltim 21:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Help with Delaware template
Hi Stilltim,

It looks like you disapproved of my edits to the Delaware template yesterday. In the spirit of being bold, I went through all 55 states/insular areas on WikiProject U.S. states/state templates and standardized the templates. (94% page width, 75px flag in the upper left corner, section headers down the left side.) I admit that I know very little about Delaware, since I'm a Michigander living in American Samoa. That's why I need your help. I'd like the Delaware template to have the same layout as other U.S. possesions, but since I'm not an expert on the state, I could use your input on how best to lay it out. Anyway, I hope you're willing to work with me on this. Thanks for your help. Lovelac7 20:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I like your "places I've visited" layout on your user page. It's better than mine. Lovelac7 20:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello Lovelac...what's a Michigander in Samoa doing behind a computer instead of enjoying paradise? We all dream of being in such places. Seriously, I appreciate your note and will try and share my thinking with you. I have found the "standard" nav box to be very limited, and frankly not very pleasing to the eye. It uses up tons of space delivering minimal information- and much too heavily geographical. It is really not appropriate for use on a biography or historical article. So, being bold as well, I have tried to design a simpler, smaller and more attractive nav box, that is relevant for all articles that can be associated with a state. Template:Delaware is the result. I have also made a Template:PAGeneral box for that state, although I have hardly used it at all. I have also created Template:USCongressTerms for articles relating to Congress, although I strip off the lower portion for individuals and customize it to indicate the years terms they served. see J. Caleb Boggs for instance. From these boxes the reader can move anywhere, not just geographically. I think there is a general tendency to have way too many big nav boxes on these articles, and this is my attempt to suggest and experiment with an alternative. I once created a DEHistory template that looked like the PAGeneral, and used it, leaving the Delaware template a standard. This created a big fuss with certain individuals who did not object to the change, so much as two templates.


 * I would enjoy working with you on this, but I warn you the merciless editing I have experienced over the past year has forced my thinking way "out of the box" in trying to find solutions. I would love to see the same layout nationwide, and I'm sure my design could stand much improvement, but the overall goal is to dramatically reduce the size and number of nav boxes on these articles by routing readers into appropriate categories...and to make the boxes a little more professional looking. I could go back to two nav box designs, but the Delaware template as you modified it would never be used, because the new design works better for all articles. And it would in other states as well. Please give it some thought...and enjoy paradise! stilltim 21:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Take a look at the changes I made this morning (or evening in Delaware). I tried to get this edit to have the same footprint as your edit, as well as the same information. The only link I added was a general link to Category:Delaware. Other than that, I kept your colors, links, and layout.


 * By the way, Samoa is fun, but I still like editing Wikiepdia as much as I did back in Lansing, Michigan. Believe it or not, it can get pretty boring on a tropical island, just like anywhere else. Still, I'm thankful to be here. <span style="font-family:times new roman, times; color:#006633;">Lovelac7 22:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:Delaware
Stilltim: I appreciate your attachment to Template:Delaware and your desire to keep it the way that it is now (it looked great before, and it still does!). I was the same way with Template:Colorado before I realized that some state templates are so inconsistent with each other that something had to be done. I personally don't mind if the Delaware template remains as it is; it merely presents the links in a much more concise way than what Lovelac7 and I have been trying out on the other state templates.

Regarding the location of the flag images, that's something that several templates had previously, an image of the flag on the left and an image of the state seal on the right. I love the work that you've done on Template:Delaware; it's a fantastic template that will be easy to maintain and the colors juxtapose each other well. I'm all for keeping it the way it is. Feel free to tell us how to standardize the rest of the state templates (and how they can complement Delaware's) over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. states/state templates. Thanks for your concern! ;) &mdash; <span style="background-color: #ddd; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-weight: bold; font-size: 11px; padding: 3px;">Webdinger BLAH 01:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Stilltim, I got it fixed as much as I could without compromising the look of the template. Here's what I've achieved:
 * The content is now centered to the title and not the entire area of space; I added in a 75px margin to the right of the content.
 * I removed the bold-facing on "Topics." Is that what you wanted or is it the title that you wanted me to remove the bold-facing?
 * I removed the margins as much as I could, but there is still a 2px margin that refuses to disappear. I'll try again tomorrow.
 * Let me know if there's anything else I can do for you! ;) &mdash; <span style="background-color: #ddd; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-weight: bold; font-size: 11px; padding: 3px;">Webdinger BLAH 03:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, Stilltim, I'm finished with the requests that you placed on my talk page; what a difficult template to work with! It looks almost exactly like the United States Congress template you have on the J. Caleb Boggs page as for spacing and borders. And thankfully, it looks passable in Internet Explorer. Please, if there is anything more you would like me to do, feel absolutely free to contact me again on my talk page. Thanks! &mdash; <span style="background-color: #ddd; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-weight: bold; font-size: 11px; padding: 3px;">Webdinger BLAH 00:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Biden intro
Hi, I restored information you removed from the introduction, but I wanted to leave you a note in case you want to discuss it. To me it seems significant that he was elected to the Senate at such a young age, and his original national fame was a result of his presidential bid in '88, thus the links. Regards, Kaisershatner 16:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Your removal of this information with no other comment than "remove repetitive info and POV" is not very nice. The information wasn't actually repetitive, and I'm not seeing the POV problem.  This time, would you care to discuss it at the Talk page?  Kaisershatner 15:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I apologize for not sounding nicer, it wasn't meant to sound that way. I liked much of your addition to the introduction and actually am using it as a model for other articles as well. The age comment and the previous election seemed less important, and therefore not as critical to repeat in an intro. Both are covered prominently in the body of the article. The previous election actually has a TOC entry and whole paragraph. I have tried to keep intros very concise, and you were correct to expand it in this case. The removal of the POV word was an edit someone else made and was not in the intro. stilltim 15:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. I get a little prickly about being reverted without comment, so I'm sorry if I was a bit clipped in my response.  My guide for the intros is to follow the basic ideas at WP:LEAD and Summary_style, and thus the introduction actually should duplicate the major subheadings of the article that follows.  Further, I think Biden's age at initial election is significant- wasn't he pretty young for a Senator?  To me, that's notable about him. Kaisershatner 21:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The messy stub...
um... I stuck it there. Thanks for the compliment. Navboxes are on all 50 other AG's +DC, PR, Guam, USVI, and the NAAG article. Do you really want Danberg to stand out? Middle initials in title where necessary (George W. Bush) but otherwise completely optional: I am keeping it simple, stupid. - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * As to the navbox, please put it back in. If you want to use cats instead, get it deleted through WP:TFD. Until and unless, I think you should opt for uniformity. - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Borrowing a bit from Barry Goldwater, "uniformity in the pursuit of excellence is no virtue." How do we improve articles if we always opt for uniformity? I do not want to delete the nav box. It is quite useful on any article about the office of Attorney General or on the NAAG article, and probably many others. I also don't mind the Danberg article standing out. I suppose I could remove the nav box from the other 50 articles, but I think that would be too bold. I'm just trying to gradually introduce the idea that a nav box listing everyone that has done anything the subject of an article is famous for...may be too much (like this sentence). Perhaps you can suggest some forums to do so. I also recognize that middle initials are optional, but since that's the way he always signs his name, see, seems like we should do it his way when there is a choice. That actually would be the simple way...

Regarding my "compliment"...that was thoughtless, and I regret saying it. My apologies. I need to stop doing this in the middle of the night. I should have read your page and realized you were working a project. Regardless, I hope what I did improved the article, and that we can work together going forward. stilltim 03:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Hehe... no problem. Say what you will, I think the box should stay on. As for the middle initial, move it if you wish, just update incoming links. Oh, and downtown Wilmington is a seriously scary place. We got out of there quick. We enjoyed the nice state park in Northern Wilmington on the old Dupont estate. - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Biography Newsletter September 2006
The September 2006 issue of the Biography WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. plange 00:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Delawarearms.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Delawarearms.gif. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 02:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Featured list candidate
I thought you'd like to know that List of United States federal legislation has been nominated to be a Featured List. It needs 4 votes by October 2 2006.

As I have labored hard on the article, I would appreciate your looking it over. You can find a discussion here: Featured list candidates/List of United States federal legislation.

Thank you!

—Markles 23:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Moving Sykes and Van Dyke
A while ago you asked me to help move "James Sykes (physician)" to "James Sykes (governor)", and "Nicholas Van Dyke (1769-1826)" to "Nicholas Van Dyke (senator)", reversing the current redirects. I agree that this needs to be done, and you could do so yourself if the redirect pages didn't have edit histories. Just list them in WP:RM under "Noncontroversial proposals". If you have any trouble, please let me know. Chris the speller 02:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Question on historical senators biographies
I'm currently working on John W. Johnston, a senator from Virginia in the 1800s, and wanted to find out what you thought a good TOC structure should be? I found this that you guys worked on User:PaulHanson/Style_guide but wanted to see what you guys felt was proper for content, etc? Namely, is it encyclopedic to mention any bill introduced by the said senator? Should details be divided up by which session of Congress it occurred in? Greatly appreciate any guidance you can give. --plange 03:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Delawarearms.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Delawarearms.gif. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a free image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Congressional delegation discrepancy
for Virginia-- I posted a notice -- do you know which is correct? Besides wanting to fix whichever is incorrect, I'm using the List as a to-do list with all the red links. Also I wanted to populate the congressional pages (Virginia's 9th congressional district) with their historical data... Thanks! --plange 05:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Delaware senate election
Sorry that it took a while to respond. The source that I used was this CNN page, U.S. SENATE / DELAWARE. – Zntrip 17:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Early Congresses
You have done a lot of work on these articles and I don't wish to be critical. But I am finding a lot of errors in the numbering of House members. Look at Pennsylvania in the 4th Congress for example. The numbers make no sense at all, even allowing for the fact that the 4th District elected two members. And why assign district numbers to the members from Connecticut (for example), when they were elected at large? Adam 01:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Please feel free to be critical. The district assignments in the early congresses for certain states are very questionable. Pennsylvania and Virginia are particular problems. On-line congressional records that I have found are reliable only from the 24th Congress. I can find no good source prior to that, specifically for district assignments. To the best of my knowledge, the answer is not in the as you suggest. So I actually just left the districts assignments from contributors prior to me. I tried to note on the discussion page that there was work to be done there, as well as for some of the party designations. On some congresses I just left them alpha with a footnote claiming ignorance, but what is there in the 4th in PA seems like it has some basis in fact. I just don't understand it or know where it came from. It seems there were multiple instances of multi member districts, possibly with non consecutive numbering, but I have nothing that says this...only guesswork. I am resigned to having to do some real on-site research to find a good source for this information, but do not have the time just now. If you know of a good source, please advise, even if in Philadelphia, I can probably track it down. Your interest and help is appreciated. stilltim 01:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. One of my strange enthusiasms is electoral cartography (see my website). About ten years ago I found and photocopied an atlas of congressional districts from 1789 to the 1980s, which I still have. I am currently making a complete set of US District maps. Here is the citation for the atlas. It gives the name and district number of every member elected to House from 1789 to 1983, although unfortunately not their party (for this you have to cross-reference with the bioguide. The atlas shows clearly (for example) that in the 1790s PA had 12 districts, of which only the 4th was a "double." It also shows that CT and NH elected their members "at large" (CT continued to do so until 1837). I am reluctant to take on the task of redoing all these articles, and it seems strange that an Australian should have to do so. You or another US editor should be able to find that atlas in a library somewhere. Adam 02:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is a sample. It has taken me a week to get up to 1797, so I expect this will take approximately the rest of my life to finish.


 * Wonderful information, thank-you. I feel like I've died and gone to heaven! I'm sure I can find it. Regrettably this effort of mine is an avocation and competes with a full time job and family/household responsibilities... Once I locate the atlas I will make the corrections. The last time I looked, the bioguide was not complete with regard to party. They seemed to have stopped towards the end of the alphabet. Stay tuned, and thanks again. stilltim 02:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not posting my maps of current elections to WP, because I want to maintain my website as a separate entity until such time as WP can protect its contents against vandalism, which won't be any time soon under its current administrative arrangements. (see The Problem with Wikipedia at the bottom of my User page). But these historical maps are another matter. I was going to wait until I had finished the whole sequence before I uploaded them, but that might be a long time. So perhaps I should upload them year by year as I do them. But I don't want to incorporate them into the existing articles, which are, with all due respect, too cluttered already. I might create a sample article, United States Congressional Districts, 1797, and see what you and others think. Adam 02:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a very sensible approach for the maps. Links would be good. The 1797 PA map actually refers to the 5th Congress, and if posted might be more understandable if labeled that way. I would be interested in your thoughts about presentation of information on the Congress articles, although the current layout is the result of very difficult negotiation with another editor. I generally agree with your comments about WP. Basically it needs an editorial board to keep the crazies at bay. What bothers me the most are the too zealous "editors" who contribute nothing themselves, but spend vast amounts of time disrupting serious contributers. Fortunately I've noticed that they generally go away after a few weeks. What I need the most is the ability to produce maps like yours to illustrate the articles I write. Someday I'll learn how to do it. stilltim 03:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

So you think United States Congressional Districts, 5th Congress would better reflect American usage? Or perhaps United States Congressional Districts: 5th Congress (1797-1799). Adam 03:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think the first would be fine. I have borrowed the material you pointed out and am about to post corrections for the first 9 congresses. You have been a great help!!! stilltim 01:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I will create a sample page tonight and see what you think. When you are corrcting the lists in the existing articles, you will notice that the lists of members given in the atlas make no distinction between members elected on election day and members elected to fill vacancies during the term. So you will still need to use the bioguide to disambiguate when you find two members listed for the same district. Adam 03:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is a possible layout for the maps. I have deleted the names of the Congressmen elected. There seems no point in duplicating what is already in the articles you are working on. Tell me what you think. Adam 11:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

As I said, the maps are beautiful. I do notice a couple of errors (?) when comparing to the atlas I have...South Carolina & Virginia. Also the atlas shows at large districts as diagonal lines with party coloration. Can you do that or some equivalent? I do understand, and have good data for transitional members. I am working from the Historical Atlas of Political parties in the United States Congress, a later companion to the Atlas of Congressional Districts. It has maps that look very much like yours, except the color is reversed. stilltim 01:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject Biography
Hey. Just wondering, i was lookign through the full list of the articles in Wikiproject Biography, and the list keeps breaking up. Every time I try to fix it, another section of notes for someone messes up the table. I them noticed each time that the notes you're putting in when you're discussing your rating choice are apparently messign up the table. Basically, it you look here: Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Biography_articles_by_quality/5 and get to the point where the table stops, you'll see what I'm talking about. My main questions are if you were aware of this, and if not, how could the format be fixed without removing your stuff completely? You seem to put a lot of time in each one so I don't want to remove them, but they're also messing up the numbers of each kind of bio on the main page. --Wizardman 05:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I was not aware of this, thanks for pointing it out. Not being much of a programmer, I do not know what in my syntax causes the problem. I was trying to respond to the request to document "present staus" and progress. There is nothing sacred to me about how the information is presented, and if you or others could suggest a better way, I will use it and modify what is out there. stilltim 11:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem. I actualy love the way you're reating them, it's very well done. Really the only problem is the addition of the table. Basically I'm just takign the table itself out (see here), as the info is more than good enough to hang around. I actually have no idea why the frames messed up the table. It's really not a big deal anyway as I'm sure very few people actually view the complete table.-- Wizardman 17:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

20th United States Congress
I was looking for the 20th Congress of the CPSU, but when I typed in 20th Congress it redirected to 20th United States Congress. The edit I made to the lattermost wasn't WP:NONSENSE. Would it be better to edit 20th Congress? Шизомби 15:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That works, thanks! Шизомби 16:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Expiration of congressional terms
Thanks for your post at Talk:List of Presidents of the United States and your thoughts on the "March 3rd vs. March 4th" issue. I've left a reply on the page and would welcome your further comments. Regards, Newyorkbrad 02:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Handyirving.jpg
FYI, the Library of Congress has a more complete copy of this image that you found at findagrave, at http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/ppmsca.03086. According to that copy, it's actually Levin Corbin Handy, not L. Irving Handy. Unless you have a source that contradicts the LoC's identification, you might want to request it to be deleted as badname (I'll be uploading the larger copy to commons shortly, for the Levin C. Handy article). --Davepape 06:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:BustGarrettHobart.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:BustGarrettHobart.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 15:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Reprmncastle.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Reprmncastle.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. <font color="CEBE70">MECU ≈ talk 21:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Current office templates
Personally, I was against such templates initially, but I have gone the other way and now I support them as they are useful navigation aides and bring traffic to otherwise unvisited articles. These templates have become widely accepted and their use has been established by consensus in the community. For example, the U.S. Senators template was nominated for deletion a while ago, and received a lot of votes; the result was a resounding "keep". While you are clearly very protective of Delaware articles, consensus and general practice says these templates should be on all the state's pages, including Delaware. If you have a problem with them as a whole, you should nominate them for deletion instead of removing them from the pages. --tomf688 (talk - email) 04:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Your Edits to Joe Biden
I'm confused why you insist on moving the succession box to the middle of this article --- I thought it was standard to put it at the bottom of senator's article and so, I made the edit that you just reverted. And, in the process, you've removed two succession boxes that are fairly commonly used for other US Senators. I'm declining to revert your edits, but I find it strange that you insist on non-standard practices for this particular article. Rickterp 18:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I appreciate you asking the question. I hope I can answer it satisfactorily, although without you having an account I can't reply on your page. The succession box information regarding the senator office is nicely included in the infobox and therefore is unnecessarily redundant to include in another template on a remote portion of the page. The County Council office is not appropriate for a succession box at all, as it has no specific predessesor/successor. However, the committee chairs are appropriate and are not shown elsewhere, hence I left them. Rather than bury them at the bottom of the article where they would be unlikely to be seen, I placed them with the paragraph on the committee assignments, illustrating the narrative, much like a picture or table. It is my belief that the use of "standard" practices are always subject to thoughtful consideration, that too many templates detract from articles, and that their use, design and placement should be particularly reviewed for logic and usefulness, regardless of what an informal standard may be. stilltim 21:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply. I've been editing in wikipedia for less than a year and it's tough to understand how to achieve balance between what might look right in one situation and a practice that seems standard for other comparable situations. This is particularly true when what is "standard" is an evolving concept and subject to constant review and (re)consideration. I've added a user page for my account --- I think you could have left me a message on my talk page, but it probably helps to not be completely anonymous on here. Rickterp 15:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, it may not have been your intention but you removed the reference to Senator Biden's contribution to domestic violence / violence against woman during the following lengthy edit:

15:46, 10 February 2007 Stilltim (Talk | contribs) (incorporating new material into flow of article, other maintenance)

Assuming it was not your intention to remove this material i have re-included it and also made some NPOV edits. i live in Australia and know next to nothing about U.S. politics so please let me know your thoughts on the Joe Biden talk page. 202.0.106.130 04:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Ordinal Congresses
Thanks for putting lots of time into the ordinal congresses. I've lately been spending lots of time on them too. I'm running into some disagreements wih other contributers, however, and the process is more frustrating than what I've run across in other articles and other broad article areas. One of the issues is whether to use Template:USCongresses or Template:USCongressTerms at the bottom of each article. The latter is used in about 80 of 110. It looks nicer on my screen and provides more information. I wondered whether perhaps it looks bad on smaller screens, but User:Markles just said that some people prefer the other one, with no reasoning given. User:Markles has reverted my changes when trying to make these consistent, and I was wondering if you know of any reason to keep the inconsistancy. --Appraiser 23:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Its nice to know of another working on the ordinal congresses. They are quite a chore, but I think worth the effort. I much prefer the Template:USCongressTerms for the reasons you stated and would hope that template is used consistantly throughout the series. I would encourage you to be persistent. User:Markles often has good suggestions for improvements, and he and I had actually reached agreement some time ago on the use of Template:USCongressTerms and its design. However, I noticed he made some edits to it just the other day...so I'm not sure what gives. Let's continue to collaborate on this. stilltim 00:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Helping out with the Unassessed Wikipedia Biographies
Seeing that you are an active member of the WikiBiography Project, I was wondering if you would help lend a hand in helping us clear out the amount of [unassessed articles] tagged with. Many of them are of stub and start class, but a few are of B or A caliber. Getting a simple assessment rating can help us start moving many of these biographies to a higher quality article. Thank you! --Ozgod 22:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Meetup
Since you're local, I wanted to let you know about Meetup/Philadelphia 3 Raul654 22:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Biography March 2007 Newsletter
The March 2007 issue of the Biography WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Mocko13 22:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Format for External Links
Nice job on the David Lloyd (judge) article, but you might want to take a look at the Style Guide on how to format External Links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links --BillFlis 19:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Ordinal Congresses
Hi. Thanks for working on the ordinal congresses. I am still entering members; I'm up to the 85th. Looking at your edits from yesterday, the headers, such as
 * Illinois show up in the diffs list, but I can't see any change. In order to reduce work later on the ones I'm working on, what is the change you're making?--Appraiser 13:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually I'm just playing around with cosmetics and made very few changes, almost all to the presentation of the links (making them blue rather than black). I saw a guideline that said they should be that way, but frankly may change them back because I prefer the black with the arrow following...what do you think? I have no idea why the rest of the stuff shows up, because it did not change. I also watch for edits that change data incorrectly, but think I only saw two in 1-18. There were also a couple of typos I fixed, but don't remember Illinois. It could have been a mistake of mine. I'll check later.


 * On the cosmetic subject, I've been wondering about the appearance of the linking of the state names. When there is so much crowded information in blue the page is a little harder to read than if the state names are in black, contrasted with the person's names in blue. I like the link, but wonder if a "Seealso" linking to the category might make the page a bit more legible. I might experiment with the 19th Congress so you can see what I mean. I build these pages off line in Word and Excel and then upload them. That way I can just copy and paste info from various sources rather than re-key all the names, dates, etc. It also assures some greater consistency. I have 1-55 all built off line, so it makes maintenance very easy, as well as changing from one format to another.

I hadn't looked at your work, and will this weekend to see where we might be out of sync. stilltim 20:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Concerning blue vs. black - are you talking about not linking the state names at all and adding a seealso for each one? That might be an improvement.  It has a couple of other advantages too: 1) we could seealso both the delegations article and the representatives (or senator) articles. 2) we could make each state a minor heading, which would provide section editing capability.
 * I had thought about only one per chamber. Let me play with 19 this weekend and see what might work. I'm always concerned about legibility, and too many notations or edit markers may be a problem. I will also add to your good work in 84 to match the format I've been using. You'll notice I've started leaving off the notes from the main article and adding them to a supplemental State Delegation article.


 * There wasn't anything special about Illinois; I just used it as an example.


 * I've worked mostly in the range of 57th thru 85th congresses so far. My plan is to continue up to about 100, adding member names and making the format consistent.  I consider 70-84 more or less done.  57 & 60-70 are not in the format that shows districts.  I'll probably re-do those after the others if someone else hasn't fixed them yet.  I know there are a lot of deaths, resignations, appointments, and special elections that are missing throughout.  When I started, I was writing "died in office"; now I'm putting in a death date.
 * I have painfully worked through all those choices and would offer the presentation you will see on 19 and 84.


 * There are some inconsistencies in the way the Territories are handled which I plan to look at someday. I'm also going through each article for my own state's representatives and senators and linking each ordinal congress that he/she was in.  (That task isn't quite as tedious as adding members to the ordinals.)
 * Clearing these up were some of the edits I did in 1-18 last night.


 * Since you're keeping a database of these lists offline, do you update yours' whenever someone fixes a name or link? I would think you'd have to avoid re-introducing errors.
 * That's exactly what I do, you'd be suprised but the edits others make to the content are far far fewer than the edits I make from my own research. I have some great reference materials right here with virtually all the answers and just need the time and patience to add them. stilltim 03:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

--Appraiser 21:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Next and Previous Congresses
Why put Previous and Next Congress in the session dates section? It's obvious that the 109th comes after the 108th and before the 110th. If it's for the sake of navigation, then it's already in your template, USCongressTerms. Therefore it looks unnecessary and redundant. My 2¢. —Markles 14:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand your point, we've discussed it before. It is for navigation. It is redundant, but I think most folks skim over these articles, looking at just the header, therefore need an easy way to move from where they are. When the articles are fully fleshed out the template at the bottom then becomes really inconvenient to get to. I liked the succession box, but agree that this note should be very unobstrusive, which is what this presentation attempts to be. stilltim 14:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, you make a good point.  You're right that there is some value in keeping a short-hand navigation available at the top.  So how can we make it seem less redundant/excessive?—Markles 16:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:BustLyndonJohnson.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:BustLyndonJohnson.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 11:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

succession boxes
I really wish you wouldn't remove succession boxes, which I notice you've done for various Delaware politicians. They are highly useful for navigating, and, I think, are certainly no more space consuming than the large tables you've been creating. (They also contain more information, in that they give predecessors and successors, where the tables you've created do not). john k 03:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm simply following what appears to be the new standard for infoboxes that do include all the succession box information at the top/right of the page where it is more readily available. I have no preference as to whether the summary "succession" information and dates of service are in either place, but there is certainly no need to be in both. I tried taking it out of the infoboxes and had the same problem. The advantage I see to using the infobox is that there is more of a consensus on how it looks, whereas some editors are making the succession boxes completely unwieldly with additions of all kinds of peripheral information. The "large" tables I am creating are intended to provde much greater detail about service and election results, information never in the succession boxes. Hope this helps, and am interested in your thoughts with this in mind. stilltim 14:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The WikiProject Biography Newsletter: Issue II - April 2007
The April 2007 issue of the WikiProject Biography newsletter has been published.You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. BetacommandBot 20:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Carvel.gif
Could you provide some information about the copyright status of Image:Carvel.gif. It is currently tagged with but as the painting is less than 100 years old this tag cannot be used. The image summary indicates that it is used with permission but by following the source link I cannot see where this is stated. If there is a page where permission is given please provide this link and add the appropriate copyright status tag (see Template messages/Image namespace for a list). Without a proper copyright attribution the image may be deleted. Thanks. Madmedea 10:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Just spotted Image:CharlesRMiller.gif and Image:BenjaminBiggs.gif, Image:Boggs.gif, same goes for this chappie! Madmedea 10:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This is an instance where the owner of the original image has clearly stated that the work is in the public domain and the present use is acceptable. His name and agency are stated, allowing verification if thought necessary. If some other statement to this effect in some other place is needed, I would appreciate clear guidance as to where/what that might be, and I will place it there. Because my reading of the tag suggests that the 100 year point is only an example and not a prerequisite, I believe it matches this situation. However, in the likely event that I misunderstand something, someone with a better understanding may certainly put the appropriate one on it. stilltim 11:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Copyright can be complicated.... so here goes... the Pd-art template can only be used for images that are in the public domain because their creator died over 100 years ago - the same is true for PD-old-70 but considering the age of the paintings that is unlikely to apply either.


 * If the images are used with permission from the copyright holder, as seems to the case here, than that permission needs to be given in the form of an appropriate free license ie. GFDL or Public domain. Permission for use just for wikipedia or non-commercial purposes isn't accepted unless the image is used under fair use terms. If this permission is available on the website where the pictures are hosted you can just provide the link to that page, if not the correspondence you had with the copyright holder needs to be sent to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. See Copyrights for the issues and for how to ask permission Requesting copyright permission. Feel free to ask more questions if you're still not clear, I'm happy to try and answer them. You can also ask questions at Wikipedia talk:Copyright FAQ. Madmedea 14:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

John Dickinson (delegate)
Any particular reason you removed the link to Liberty Song? I will gladly admit there could be more on it in the article, but it is a memorable contribution of his, and I think it should be mentioned somewhere at least. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 03:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You're right, it should be included, just not in the lead paragraph. I'll add it back. stilltim 03:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Your changes to Tom Carper's infobox
I noticed you recently made some edits to Tom Carper's and Mike Castle's infoboxes, which reverted some edits I had previously made. I am wondering why you made the edits you made. My understanding was that Template:Infobox Officeholder was recently updated to merge all other politician infoboxes into one, so that it would be easier for those officeholders who held mulitple offices. Moreover, the change were such so that you no longer need to use generic "office1", "office2", etc. for those individuals, and can use the more descriptive fields of "governor", "state", and "district" in the infoboxes.

If your changes are because of a general perference for Delaware officeholders, I will yield to your judgement. I'm just curious as to why you've chosen to format the infobox in this manner when a more descriptive option is available.Dcmacnut 16:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for asking the question. I am just getting familiar with the new infobox arrangements, so could easily be missing something, but I have always sought a clean and consistent presentation for all politicians/office holders, and it looks like the merged Template:Infobox Officeholder provides exactly that. Please consider the possibility that the more descriptive information you refer to might belong elsewhere in the article to allow a consistent infobox across offices, and to keep it clean and "to the point" in this critical portion of the page. Sometimes I think we try to cram too much information in every space and detract from the appearance and readability of the article in doing so. stilltim 01:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Point taken, however, the descriptive fields I was referring to don't necessarily clutter the infobox. The same basic information is displayed in the infobox either way, but by using specific office names for the fields ("governor", "senator". etc.) make the infobox code easier to follow than is possible with "office1", "office2". If someone holds just one office, other infoboxes don't simply say "Governor from ." It reads "Nth Governor from ."
 * For example, Delaware has just one house district, so your edits work fine by saying he was the Representative from Delaware - there's only one. But what if you had more than one district in the state. Shouldn't the field identify the district the person held rather than just a generic "U.S. Representative from "? The "state" and "district" fields use the power of the template to generate the information, rather than having to resort to filling the infobox fields with long wikilinks to portray the same information. In my opinion, that is the beauty of the merger - the template does all the work with just the basic information provided by the user in the infobox. In my mind should be reserved for those individuals whose political office doesn't fall into a specific catetorgy already in the template. My understanding of the the main reason for the merger was the various infoboxes weren't robust enough to handle people with multiple public offices, so everyone had to resort to the generic  and write out all of the offic information long hand. Now, with the merger you no longer need to do that. You can use the most appropriate infobox and office-specific fields. If we are going to continue pre-merger method of using, than I wonder why the merger was conducted in the first place.
 * Having said that, I will yield to your judgement on Delaware articles, but I think I'll continue updating other infoboxes to avoid using where appropriate.Dcmacnut 14:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Having said that, I will yield to your judgement on Delaware articles, but I think I'll continue updating other infoboxes to avoid using where appropriate.Dcmacnut 14:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Having said that, I will yield to your judgement on Delaware articles, but I think I'll continue updating other infoboxes to avoid using where appropriate.Dcmacnut 14:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, like I said I'm still learning, but it appears to me you actually are using the Template:Infobox Officeholder because they were all merged into it and all work the same, even if called otherwise. If I exchange "Infobox" with "Governor" nothing changes. The only differences happen when additional fields are added, and they can be added regardless of the name of the box. These generally include information I truly believe belongs elsewhere, like "junior/senior," "served alongside," "order," "lieutenant" and "district," or cause the way too wordy "Member of the U.S. House of Representatives from...," so I would avoid them. "Order" is a relic from boxes designed to handle British nobility, like the 6th Duke of York, and are not likewise commonly used to identify US officeholders, and shouldn't be here. "Served alongside," and "lieutenant" are interesting information, but are not critical to the subject of the article. "Junior/senior" and "district" present their own set of problems. Individual people are quite often both junior senator then senior senator, so which do you use for someone no longer in office? I chose neither. Same for district. Individuals are often from various districts over the course of their career. Do we create several entries in the infobox, allow the information to be partially incorrect, or leave it off and put it elsewhere where we can get it right. I chose the later. I have built all the ordinal Congress articles up to the 56th Congress and have read each of the congressmen's articles and have studied these issues closely for months. As you say, this is not a Delaware issue, especially with district, so I really hope you and others will think through these points, using complicated historical situations as examples, and I think like me, you will see no other way out. stilltim 20:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should pursue cleaner infoboxes. I misspoke in my point about not using - I realize they are all one and the same now. My point was more about not using generic "office" fields for each public office, but rather fields tailored specifically to that office. Why have separate fields if they aren't going to be used? And why amend the Template to allow 7 or 8 variants on past public offices in an infobox if you aren't going to portray that information. I've gone and looked at some offices to see how it would be implemented practically, and frankly some infoboxes would become so overwhelmed with data to make it unusable. You can see what I mean on my Sandbox where I'm testing out various ideas to see if they are worth implementing.

I'm not saying this is how those articles should be rewritten, but perhaps we can use Lamar Alexander's article as a model. It has an infobox for him as a senator, and then further down the article it has an infobox right next to the section on his time as governor. That is much better than having one long infobox at the top of the article. If you run into a case where (like Charlie Norwood) served two different districts during his career or where you get into "office overload" in the infobox, then an editor should use his or her best judgement. You have to balance providing complete information as well with how the infobox plays visually with the rest of the article, which ultimately is my goal.
 * As far as the debate over how much personal data to include has taken on a life of its own in other forums - some believe the info should be included, others not. My sense is that it is useful in stub articles that haven't been completely fleshed out. One point I heard made on the debate over mentioning one's religion in an infobox was "why should religion be the only 'fact' we include in an infobox, why not profession, education, or residence." My opinion has been you either include all of that "personal data" or don't include any. All major official congressinal directories include key personal facts, and I believe so should infoboxes. Yes, the information can be included in the prose of the text, but sometimes it is left out because the article is incomplete or adding it would result in some awkward phrasing. Adding it to the infobox ensure it is there and standard across articles.
 * Thanks for your insights and suggestions.Dcmacnut 22:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your insights and suggestions.Dcmacnut 22:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your insights and suggestions.Dcmacnut 22:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:S-ptd
Template:S-ptd has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Waltham, The Duke of 14:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You can see more about this here. The vote is not expected to be a thriller or anything; the Project only wishes to get rid of a redundant template.

Basically, I am afraid you should visit the Project's talk page more often; there are several issues that need to be dealt with. Right now it seems to be forgotten by almost all members of the Project.

Also, there is a working version of the /Guidelines subpage at User:The Duke of Waltham/SBS and any input, either a good idea or a simple comment, would be greatly appreciated.

Have a nice day.

Waltham, The Duke of

Format of external links in John Dickinson
Stilltim: I see you undid all of my formatting of the External links. I was following this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#How_to_link which is what I've been following for over a year now and I've never been reverted. Are you following some other standard I don't know about?--BillFlis 11:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This is clearly not a matter terrific importance and I have seen it done both ways. I have no strong preference, but do seek consistency. In fact I have been edited in both directions several times, so I picked the one that had the most visual consistency with the section on references, i.e. black text instead of blue text. The guideline you cite does give an example with the blue text, but it seems to me to be an illustration only and not intended to say categorically it must be done that way. BTW I appreciate your other edits and am contemplating switching to the default sort for categories myself. Seems like an improvement. stilltim 19:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If you are truly interested in seeking consistency, you might want to follow an established guideline. If you don't like a particular guideline, it's best to argue about that on the guideline's Discussion page.--BillFlis 01:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Ordinal Congresses
Some states have an article such as Delaware's At-large congressional district, but many do not, such as Minnesota's At-large congressional district, so if we put A/L in the template, we really ought to create articles for all the states that use it. That's really the best comprehensive solution.

Over the 110 congresses, some have "A/L." some have "A/L:" some have "A/L -" I personally like the : which I've been changing as I make other changes. The period would be my third choice. These things really are pretty easy to fix; the time consuming (and boring) part is adding congressional districts on each name (Woohoo about 11 to go!) and senatorial classes. This WikiProject seems to be a pretty obstinate crowd - makes it frustrating to get anything done.--Appraiser 00:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm. I wasn't replacing the period with colon on the numbered districts - just the A/L ones.  Was that your intention, or was it an accidental change?--Appraiser 12:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edit to 55th United States Congress (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot 00:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I've also noticed some of the delegations (i.e. NH, CT and VT-there may be others ) have A/L representation listed at the ordinal congresses, but listed as district representation when you look at the congressional rosters from each state. The ordinal congresses are cited, so I'm fixing NH right now. Not sure if it's a big deal, but thought I'd try to correct those delegatons.  Does take a bit of time.......Pmeleski 11:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

USCongressTerms
Please see my question for you at Template talk:USCongressTerms. Thanks!—Markles 20:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Ordinal congresses project
I invite you to a discussion at User talk:Appraiser. Please comment there. Cheers!—Markles 18:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop changing Joe Biden's and Tom Carper's Infoboxes
Please look at the other 98 Senator's pages. They all look the same in their infoboxes. Joe Biden's and Tom Carper's shouldn't be any different. Please stop changing them.1.21 jigwatts 19:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop changing the infobox. If you want to add stuff to the article, go ahead, but please stop changing the infobox. I will be changing it back to normal, and please keep it that way.1.21 jigwatts 22:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to keep changing the infoboxes back to normal every time you change it, so there's no point in you changing it again.1.21 jigwatts 02:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Protackmichael.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Protackmichael.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 03:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:John Carney.jpg
This fair use image has been orphaned since it has been replaced by a free alternative. --Tom (talk - email) 11:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

DC Meetup notice
Greetings. There is going to be a Washington DC Wikipedia meetup on next Saturday, July 21st at 5pm in DC. Since you are listed in Category:Wikipedians_in_Delaware, I thought I'd invite you to come. I'm sorry about the short notice for the meeting. Hopefully we'll do somewhat better in that regard next time. If you can't come but want to make sure that you are informed of future meetings be sure to list yourself under "but let me know about future events", and if you don't want to get any future direct notices \(like this one\), you can list yourself under "I'm not interested in attending any others either" on the DC meetup page.--Gmaxwell 22:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

general tix for early congresses
Welcome back!

In many of the early U.S. Congresses, some Reps are listed as being elected At-large on a general ticket. This looks right to me. However, I'm not confident in the sources. I'll see this in both the "United States congressional delegations from FOO" tables and in "FOOth United States Congress." In the tables, an asterisk is used.

Can you give me a reliable source for those early Reps? Preferably one easy-to-access source for all states? I'd like to be sure exactly when each delegation went to and from at-large representation.

What I'd like to do is modify the tables in the "… delegations…" articles to reflect that those reps were elected at-large by a general ticket. See, for example, the work I've done with early New Hampshire Reps at United States Congressional Delegations from New Hampshire.

(I'll read your reply here.)

—Markles 14:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure. The references I give on all the congress articles- Prof Martis. These are completely reliable and used by the Congress itself for its accounting. The books even map the data. I found one in the University of Delaware library, I'm sure there are several copies in the Boston area. (If that's where you are). Alas, I've never seen it on-line and it costs $700 to buy. Too much for me today.


 * Your project is an ambitious one. Figuring out how to display at-large congressmen in the same format as district ones is not easy because there is no real first/second/third seat. Nor can one be said to suceed another. I commend you for trying to fgure it out, and the NH example you gave is sure a good shot. In any case you can absolutely rely on the accuracy of the rendering in the ordinal congress articles as I have rechecked it many times from the source noted below. (but watch for less careful subsequent editing) Good luck.



stilltim 12:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You know I was hoping you wouldn't cite Martis. That book weighs a ton and my library hates when I take it out.
 * I know this is ambitious, but so are most projects on WP. My goal is to correct the idea (perhaps originally perpetrated by me) that there were X number of districts when, in fact, there were fewer districts which doubled up. See, e.g., Maryland.
 * I've recenly done new work on general tickets with United States Congressional Delegations from New York over the weekend. Frankly, I think I need to pull back a little.  I might have gone overboard with calling some seats "At-large" (see, e.g., Category:Obsolete United States Congressional districts).
 * —Markles 12:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

stilltim 16:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, it does, but it has all the answers. I've tried to use Martis' terminology as best I understand it. "At-large" referring only to statewide districts, and "plural" districts refering to multi member districts that are not state wide. I suppose "general ticket" can refer to either, but it seems to be applied mostly to "at-large" situations. Naturally Martis gives a long and excellent description of these and other terms, that we really need to understand to do this right.

Just inserting my thoughts as I've been following this discussion and am also working on congressional districts, mainly historical boundaries through the Official Congressional Directory. I've checked out Martis Political Parties through interlibrary loan here in North Dakota, and am waiting for delivery (if at all). No local copies are available. My general understanding of districts was that a state could have more than one at-large district, but the district wasn't necessarily elected on a "general ticket." For example, South Dakota had two at-large districts from statehood until the 1910 Census, when it got three. Each at-large seat was elected separately (individual elections), so I would argue they are separate districts, albeit with the same geographic boundaries. However, this does raise questions of succession, but that could be fairly simple to work out.
 * Plural means 2+ members elected at large from a district? And General ticket means 2+ elected at large from the entire state?  I'll try to get Martis, but it takes a while for interlibrary loan.—Markles

General tickets, on the other hand, I understand to be where the representatives are elected as a group in one election, i.e. a slate of candidates wherein a vote for one means a vote for all. Kind of like the way most states choose presidential electors. But a plural ticket would be two or more members representing a district, but each being elected individually instead of a group. A modern example of a plural district would be the state legislatures in the Dakotas, where there are two Representatives elected from each district. Each compete in separate elections even though both represent the same geographic area. Figuring out whom succeeded whom in the South Dakota case, was surprisingly simple in most cases, particularly if one member from a district served multiple years, while his district-mate changed every session.

Again, just my thoughts. This is a worthy project, and I'd be willing to lend a hand in any way I can.24.220.191.2 01:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC) Clarification. The preceeding was added by me, Dcmacnut, For some reason, Wikipedia logged me out in the midst of typing a response.Dcmacnut 02:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Discussion transferred to Talk:General ticket for a broader audience.—Markles 16:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

US Senate Party affiliations from State Congressional Delegations
Tim: Here is one for you. I was looking at the Senatorial Rosters from most of the state US senate delegations,and it seems only the first party a particular senator was elected to is indicated. (i.e, X Senator was colored and sent to Federalist designation,even if the sen changed to anther party later(ie Democrat-Republican). It seems to ccur only in the early parties, and for those Senators who changed parties during consecutive terms. There are a few of them It seems to ccur only in the early parties. I'm not sure how big a deal it is for now, but I thought I'd share the info. I tried fixing but I can't get the columns to line up right,particularly if a Senator was replaced mid term. Pmeleski 23:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I am following Martis' information closely, and you are corrrect, it reflects the stituation when the person first came into the Congress. However, on the main article, I don't know why another one letter party designation could not be added (with a footnote), with a brief description on the "state delegation" and "political parties" articles, and a full description on the "membership changes" article. Give me an example (with source) and I will try to do it. stilltim 10:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC).


 * Take a look at United States Congressional Delegations from Massachusetts for one. For example, according to the Congressional Biography, Samuel Livermore was a Pro-Admin candidate, until 1795, when he joined the Federalists.  John Davis was an Anti-Jackson 1835-37, then a Whig thereafter.  Daniel Webster was an Adams 1827-29, an Anti-Jackson 1829-33, then a Whig from 12833 on. Isaac Hall was a Jacksonian 1831-35, then a Democrat from then on.  Samuel Bell was a Adams-Clay D-R 1823-1825, an Adams 1825-1829, and a Anti-Jackson 1829-35.  Thats just a few.Pmeleski 11:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Leaders
A template you created, Template:Leaders, has been marked for deletion as a deprecated and orphaned template. If, after 14 days, there has been no objection, the template will be deleted. If you wish to object to its deletion, please list your objection here and feel free to remove the <tt> </tt> tag from the template. If you feel the deletion is appropriate, no further action is necessary. Thanks for your attention. --MZMcBride 20:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

List of Governors of Delaware
I would appreciate further discussion on the talk page. --Golbez 11:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Your name brought up
Aloha! Your name was brought up in a current RfA for User:Markles: Requests for adminship/markles. As someone that Markles has apparantly been in disagreement with, I would appreciate a bit of insight as to whether Markles' telling of the story is correct. I am not here asking you to express your opinion on the RfA (although you may do so if you choose), I just like hearing from "all sides". You can even just respond here if you would like, and I will keep an eye out. Mahalo, Tim. --Ali&#39;i 18:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

SBS membership renewal request—Project in great need of contributors
The summer has passed (unless you live in the Southern Hemisphere), and for most people holidays are over. Therefore, it is time for work again. Not that work ever stops in Wikipedia, but I believe we can at last get over the stage when slow progress can be taken for granted. Like yourself, most members of WikiProject Succession Box Standardization have been away during most of the summer (and some of you have been away for much longer); this lack of contributors has almost led SBS activity to a standstill.

A couple of members have stayed, however, and things have greatly improved in the project. There is a renovated and functional main page; the talk page has organised archives and a dedicated page for archived proposals; the Guidelines page is in a very good shape and I am preparing a further set of guidelines to be proposed for adoption by the project and incorporation into the page; the Documentation page has been again updated and a potential restructuring is being planned; the Templates list is the operations centre for the ongoing removal of antiquated and redundant templates. The Offices page is the only one that has yet to be improved, but there is a proposal for that one as well. Even a new SBS navbox has been created and added to the project's pages, easing navigation between the different parts of the WikiProject, while shortcuts have been created for the three most basic pages.

And the project itself is not the only thing that has been improved; the headers system has been cleared up and rationalised during the last six months, and a new parameter system is being inserted into templates like s-new and s-vac in order to successfully adapt succession boxes to more tricky cases of succession without large, clumsy cells or redundant reasoning. S-hou has also been improved and /doc pages have been added to most of the headers' pages, as well as to many proper succession templates' ones.

Despite all these breakthroughs that have made SBS a better, more functional and more user-friendly WikiProject, things move excruciatingly slowly as far as the adoption of proposals and correction/improvement of succession boxes in the mainspace are concerned. As has been mentioned, this is due to the utter absence of all but two of its members. I completely understand that a few of them might be unwilling to resume work in SBS, and some of them might even have left Wikipedia altogether. However, we are certain that there are people intent to continue improving Wikipedia's succession boxes and helping others to do so as well. If you are one of them, please return. And even if you cannot help at the moment, but want to contribute at a later time, please let us know by renewing your membership. You can do that very easily by removing the asterisk next to your name in the member list in SBS's main page. The deadline is 31 October; members that do not renew their memberships until 23:59 of that day will be removed from the list, as these members will be assumed to have left the project for good.

SBS is a project highly capable of doing some serious work in Wikipedia. These potentials are seriously undermined by the unavailability of helpful hands. I hope you shall consider this message seriously before taking any decisions.

Thank you for your time. Waltham, The Duke of 14:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Ordinal Congresses - Parties during the 19th Congress and later
I've been looking over the ordinal congress articles, particularly the 19th Congress. The overview lists Democratic Party and National Republican Party, while the individual members are listed as Democratic-Republicans in favor of Adams or Jackson. The official Clerk of the House site identifies them as Adams and Jacksons. National Republican is never really used. National Republicans didn't "officially" form until 1832, when they fielded Henry Clay as their presidential candidate. Jacksons didn't start calling themselves Democratic until after 1832 (information from Congressional Quarterly's Guide to Elections).

While I think the articles should be changed to list the parties as Adams and Jacksons (there were Adams Democrats and Jackson Republicans), I have no strong opposition to using the Democratic and National Republican monikers, as that makes it easier for a broader audidence to understand the difference and points out a key turning point in the schism within the Democratic-Republican Party. However, would you object to me adding Adams and Jacksons as a parenthetical to the headings in the 19th Congress and 20th Congress articles for sake of completness and to match the Clerk of the House description? For the 21st Congress and until the Whigs appeared in the 25th Congress, I would change add Anti-Jacksonian to the National Republican line to be more accurate. Thoughts?Dcmacnut 16:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I checked the bioguide for a couple: Henry H. Chambers is listed as a "Jacksonian" and Calvin Willey is list as "Adams; Anti-Jackson". I think it makes sense to clearly distinguish between the factions within the Democratic-Republican party.--Appraiser 17:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course, you are both right. I tried to make the changes you suggested. stilltim 22:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Adams-Clay Republicans
Tim:

As you are probably aware, one of my efforts has been to add historical US rep rosters to various Rep districts (now focusing in New England right now). One thing I haven't worked out in my mind (and in the spirit of trying to be accurate) is if Adams-Clay Republicans should be grouped with Democratic-Republicans or National Republicans........Most of the rosters here show Adams-Clay as National Republicans, but outside sources show the election of 1824 shows the Democratic-Republican group (of which Adams-Clay was around then)as the only viable party at this time. I was reading the threads on Democratic/Republican vs. Republican vs. Jeffersonian Republican and certainly don't want to start an edit war. But if I go forward with creating the rosters, I don't want to create additional work by grouping this in the wrong body and having myself or someone else change them later. I suppose I could leave it alone for now, but someone else may come along and do it anyway without concensus. Any thoughts?........

And do you know who has access to the political party key?????? I wanted to discuss some stuff there too......Pmeleski 23:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I would suggest calling congressmen "Democratic-Republicans" or "Federalists" through the 20th Congress and adding an indicator as to which faction they belonged: "Adams," "Jackson," "Crawford." Of course, in the 19th and 20th there were no Federalists or Crawford. From the 21st through 24th, I would use the terms "Jacksonian or Democratic" and "Anti-Jacksonian or National Republican." I have used "D" or "NR" for an abbreviation for them. It's a bit of a call, but I think doing it this way is clear and covers all bases that I know of.


 * I do not know the answer to your second question. Can you find it in the edit history? stilltim 22:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:NS-Flag.png
Image:NS-Flag.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 03:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Featured List nomination
109th United States Congress has been nominated for Featured List status. Please comment here. —Markles —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 12:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Obviously I missed the deadline for commenting, but clearly it doesn't match the standard we established in many ways. stilltim 22:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Biography Newsletter 5
To receive this newsletter in the future, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated R Delivery Bot 16:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC).

Massachusetts and South Carolina delgations for the 19th Congress
Since you have a copy of Martis available, could you review the district representatives for these two states during the 19th Congress? They order currently displayed does not match that in CQ's Guide to U.S. Elections. CQ pulls directly from the Inter-university consortium on political research, which got its information directly from state election returns. CQ's returns match up for all other years except for 1823-1833 for Massachusetts. South Carolina is showing a discrepancy from 1825-1843. I want to check with you on what Martis says before correcting the articles.Dcmacnut 18:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I have rechecked Martis, and the district assignments I have shown are exactly what he has. In his first atlas, The Historical Atlas of Congressional Districts, published in 1982, on page 39, he describes his source for the relevant years as follows: "the ICPSR 1 data file, "Historic Election Returns, 1788-1976 (as amended and published in Congressional Quarterly's Guide to United States Elections); and the ICPSR 4 data file, "United States Congressional Roll Call Voting Records," taken from the WPA records. He states that this is the first time the two have been cross referenced, and that "researching, codifying, and keypunching errors were found in both." He says that discrepancies were resolved by "checking state histories, individual biographies, election returns, contested election documentation and newspaper reports of the day." He points out that Massachusetts was particularly "eclectic" before 1823. Given that he cites your source and notes the resolution of errors there, I believe we should accept the results of his research as definitive. Some sort of footnote might be appropriate though, noting the issue and the resolution. I will try and place it for the periods you point out. stilltim 21:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking. I figured he may have been more thorough. CQ only pulls from the ICPSR data files. I recently found another discrepancy with Pennsylvania's 16th District. CQ says it's the 17th, but Martis and a journal regarding multi-member districts says its the 16th. I'll follow Martis, and make notations when I come across them.
 * As as an aside, did you know that the American Antiquarian Society is undertaking an early elections database ? It says the interface will be up sometime this month. I've found bits an pieces of their old interface, and was able to get full names for a few non-winning candidates, where CQ only listed last names. Could prove to be a useful resource.Dcmacnut 01:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, what a massive tangle it must have been to straighten this out. I look forward to seeing the AAS database, thanks for pointing it out. stilltim 10:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, what a massive tangle it must have been to straighten this out. I look forward to seeing the AAS database, thanks for pointing it out. stilltim 10:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Boggs.gif
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Boggs.gif, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 01:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Early Virginia Congressional delegations
Do you have any information about who represented the various Virginia districts for the first eight Congresses (from 1789-1807)? They are missing from United States Congressional Delegations from Virginia. —Markles 15:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, but I think its all on the various ordinal congress articles. What additional information would you like? stilltim 20:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Whoops. I should have looked there.  What was I thinking?  Thanks.—Markles 20:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Minner Photo
With regard to your message on my user talk page, I feel constrained to point out that copyright concerns are not a "technicality" and that enforcement of Wikipedia's policies is not vandalism, "benign" or otherwise. You've been around long enough to know how serious Wikipedia is about copyrights and how important that concern is.

Ironically, although I removed it from the article, I neglected to delete the image, which works out because it gives you a chance to explain how the permission was documented. All I see on the image page now is an image tag that was added by another editor that has no basis. You apparently had tagged the image fair use, but current Wikipedia policy prohibits most non-free images of living people. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see anything about permission there.

If you have permission, by all means forward it to OTRS so they can clear it and the image can remain. (See this page for more guidance on that.) Otherwise, it will have to be deleted. -- <font color="White">But |<font color="White">seriously |<font color="White">folks  07:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I see what happened. When I used the search box, it took me right to the similarly-named image.  I had to paste into the URL to get the right image page.  Anyhow, the problem with Image:MinnerRuthAnn.jpg was that the permission only encompassed use in her Wikipedia entry.  In order to be used at Wikipedia, images have to be licensed in a way that permits reuse (including commercial reuse), derivatives, etc.  See WP:CSD.  So the image couldn't stay.  If you can get them to license it under the GFDL or one of the appropriate Creative Commons licenses, I'll be happy to restore it.  Just let me know.  Cheers! -- <font color="White">But |<font color="White">seriously |<font color="White">folks   18:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You're looking for WP:COPYREQ. The Minner image is still going to be a problem though.  This is the statement from her office that you included on the image page:  "Please consider this message a confirmation of our approval for your request for permission of use for Governor Minner’s Wikipedia entry. Please credit “State of Delaware – Office of the Governor” with the work, state that it is used with our permission and provide a link back to our website."  There's no way to fix that unless you have other correspondence from her office that grants a broader license. -- <font color="White">But |<font color="White">seriously |<font color="White">folks   20:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The permission is qualified. It is permission of use "for Governor Minner's Wikipedia entry".  Ironically, that permission is not good enough for use at Wikipedia.  See this page. -- <font color="White">But |<font color="White">seriously |<font color="White">folks   21:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, tell you what: I'll restore it but list it at WP:PUI.  That will get you two weeks and probably more, as PUI is usually backlogged by an additional couple of weeks or more.  You can take that time to do what you can to clarify the permission.  Cool? -- <font color="White">But |<font color="White">seriously |<font color="White">folks   02:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:MinnerRuthAnn.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:MinnerRuthAnn.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.  <font color="White">But |<font color="White">seriously |<font color="White">folks  02:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

standardizing navigational boxes
Stilltim - please see my comment on the DEGeneral talk page. Let's work together toward converging on a standard for Delaware pages and their navigational boxes. Elpiseos 14:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

collapsible
When there are 2 or more nav boxes with "autocollapse" on a page, they will all collapse except for the primary one, which I believe is defined to be the top one. Elpiseos 04:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:MarkellJackA.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:MarkellJackA.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. --OrphanBot 05:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:BustCalvinCoolidge.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:BustCalvinCoolidge.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --OrphanBot (talk) 13:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Ordinal congresses style formatting
Please see my proposed formatting discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress/Ordinal congresses. I have applied these styles to the 60th, 77th, and 84th-110th Congresses, so far.—Markles 18:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

68th Congress
It's not really a "cleaner" format, is it? I'm willing to concede your need for italicized party names/initials and for piping chaplains as "The Rev…" but why do you have to revert to USCongressTerms, indented/bolded headings instead of standardized === wiki-style headings, etc.? There were a lot of other changes which you reverted, but what was wrong with them?—Markles 04:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Coonschristopher.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Coonschristopher.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 22:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

No content in Category:Delaware State Legislators
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Delaware State Legislators, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Delaware State Legislators has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Delaware State Legislators, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 12:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Undoing my work
I have pain-stakingly been checking U.S. Representative's names and links in the Ordinal Congress articles, and have found a lot of errors. I don't care too much that you have been changing the format in all of those articles-although I still very much believe the transition information should be left intact, as many of the Rep's articles do not have resignation dates. I will probably eventually go back and put in the ones you have deleted. BUT, I am very upset that you are not checking the names that you are changing. That activity makes me want to revert all of your recent changes. Before changing formats, PLEASE update your database with the corrections that have been incorporated in the lists of names. For example, look at my change today in the 69th United States Congress. I fixed that name on September 19, and you UNFIXED it yesterday! Your sloppiness is anti-productive to getting these articles right. Merry Christmas.--Appraiser (talk) 17:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your quick response and for double-checking the names. There's an awful lot of information here, and it's tough to get it all right.  As for the transition information - if you're willing to add it to all the biography articles, I'm OK with that.  I use fairly big screens, and don't see the crowding issues that you have described.
 * I'm looking now at Matthew Vincent O'Malley, who was elected to the 72nd United States Congress after the death of John Francis Quayle .  His obit here  calls him a congressman, but John J. Delaney's bioguide entry says that O'Malley was a representative-elect, and he doesn't have his own bioguide entry.  I think he should be added to the List of members-elect of the United States House of Representatives who never took their seats instead of on the 72nd United States Congress article.  Also, his own article, Matthew Vincent O'Malley, appears to be wrong.  What do you think?--Appraiser (talk) 18:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

US Congress dates
Please see discussion at WikiProject US Congress, before thinking of reverting my March 4th edits. GoodDay (talk) 23:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Would a compromise be possible? Have the March 3 dates on the 'session sections', but keep the March 4 dates at top of articles & in infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Russ_peterson.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Russ_peterson.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use media which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 19:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Elections1792-DE
A tag has been placed on Template:Elections1792-DE 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.

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Elections1897-DE
A tag has been placed on Template:Elections1897-DE 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.

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:ElectionsUSDE
A tag has been placed on Template:ElectionsUSDE 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.

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

List of counties in Delaware
Way back in April 2006, you added the following to List of counties in Delaware: "The boundaries between the districts were not well defined, and there is some indication that the Upland District served the Swedish and Finnish population in the central Delaware Valley, and New Castle served the Dutch and few English." (diff). Do you have a reference for this statement? I ask because thearticle is being nomainetd for FA status. Tom pw (talk) (review) 22:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

your test subpage
Hi, Stilltim. fyi, I dropped colons into the front of a couple of categories in templates on that page, to keep the page from being displayed in the categories themselves. Gwguffey (talk) 21:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Input requested - Georgia's House members from the 1st Congress
When you have a chance, please take a look at my post at Talk:1st_United_States_Congress on some apparent discrepencies in the members/districts for the 1st Congress. You've done the lionshare of the work on the early congresses, so you're probably better equipped to answer the questions.Dcmacnut (talk) 22:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Subquestion on John Sevier from North Carolina
John Sevier is listed in the 1st Congress as being from North Carolina's 5th district. The aforementioned "U.S. Congressional Districts 1788-1841" by Stanley Parsons has him listed in a footnote as being elected as "representative from Tennessee in the First Congress" because North Carolina's districts "included the present state of Tennessee." That all of Tennessee was once a part of North Carolina is not in dispute. The Annals of Tennessee (1853), page 433, found on Google Books, indicates that John Sevier was elected to Congress in 1789 as a representative of North Carolina from the Tennessee lands, and took his seat in June 1790. He is referred to in The National Cyclopaedia of American Biography (1893), page 430, as the "first representative in Congress from the Mississippi Valley." However, North Carolina ceded its Tennessee lands to the U.S. on April 2, 1790 and Congress formed the Southwest_Territory on May 26. So while it is possible that the area was part of North Carolina when he was elected, it wasn't part of North Carolina when he took his seat. I'm just trying to get my head wrapped around the boundaries and locations of the early districts to help expand the historical aspect of the district articles. I know this borders on violating WP:NOR, but most of the sources on the early congresses are just educated guesses as it is. What does Martis say about John Sevier and the 5th district's boundaries for the 1st Congress? Dcmacnut (talk) 04:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Nevermind. I was (finally) able to get a copy of Martis through Inter Library Loan locally and answered my own question (i.e. Sevier's district was in Tennessee for the 1st Congress). Even if that district disappeared after he was elected, that shouldn't have changed his status, since district changes do not take affect while the member is still in office.Dcmacnut (talk) 23:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Presbyterian.gif
Thank you for uploading Image:Presbyterian.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 14:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Representatives from California in the 79th Congress
Can you please confirm & correct the list of Representatives from California in the 79th United States Congress? I'm trying to correct United States congressional delegations from California. See Talk:79th United States Congress.—Markles 14:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:AdamsWilburL.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:AdamsWilburL.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly hi! 00:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Infobox Politician-DE
Template:Infobox Politician-DE has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.


 * Hi there, I know don't tag the elder, but it's much more eseayer to do so. You created it and it's orphaned, not to be misleading it should be deleted. Greetings Sebastian scha. (talk) 00:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

List of Governors of Delaware for FLRC
Hello, I've nominated the List of Governors of Delaware for Featured List removal. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:DuPontPierre.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:DuPontPierre.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 01:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Seidenstud (talk) 01:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

USSenDE
I added USSenDE and replaced a manually created template. I am not sure if this is what you guys wan to do, but it seems more standard in appearance.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 09:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Duponthenrya.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Duponthenrya.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 07:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Project Congress
As a participant of WikiProject U.S. Congress, please consider placing Project Congress to do at the top of your User_talk page. Thank you. —Markles 15:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Almanac subsection in Joe Biden article
Hi Stilltim, I would appreciate your comments on the Joe Biden talk page. It seems you created the almanac section. While I appreciate the work you have put in, to me this section appears to be needlessly detailed. Also, I do not understand why this section is called almanac. --KarlFrei (talk) 13:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Ordinal Congresses
Welcome back!!! We've got a new format for the ordinal congress (1st United States Congress…113th United States Congress) articles. I undid three of your recent changes - I'm sorry because I know it was a lot of work for you. Check out those recent reverts for ideas on how the format has changed. Use 110th United States Congress, 111th United States Congress, and 1st United States Congress as a guide to format. Ask me if you have any questions. Thanks for your help. —Markles 12:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

48th United States Congress - summary
I'm slightly confused as to why this is a "summary"; it is the same size as 48th United States Congress give or take. Care to enlighten me? Ironholds (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Having looked at your contributions I see you've created lots of these. Among other things the title is completely inappropriate; I suggest moving them to something like "Summary of the 48th United States Congress". Ironholds (talk) 15:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please reply to justify these articles. They seem excessive, and if I don't get a reply I'll send them off to AfD. Ironholds (talk) 15:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I can't, however, see the need for such articles; they are the same size as the main article (hardly a summary), completely proseless and badly referenced. Still, I'll let you patch them up for a few weeks before I take a looksee again. Ironholds (talk) 21:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is that, as mentioned, I can't see a need for these articles. They contain virtually no content not present in the main articles. If some content dispute was preventing you from adding information to those articles, creating your own little domain where you can do as you please isn't going to work. Ironholds (talk) 06:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd also suggest actually putting one up to a vaguely decent standard, not just creating 200 of the damned things. Ironholds (talk) 10:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Tim,I hope the comments about making a mess out of the Congresses wasn't directed at me. To give you a heads up of what I'm doing, I'm in process of cleaning up the congressional districts (slowly plodding along).  If I find some info through the Congressional Bio or Martis that a particular congressman has vacated early, and its not mentioned on any congress, I try to carry those dates over so it may help complete the information that someone is already doing in some congresses but is inconsistent throughout.  I figure I'm already there and it doesn't take much time at all to transfer. Let me know if something is amiss......Pvmoutside (talk) 12:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of 56th United States Congress - summary
I have nominated 56th United States Congress - summary, 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/56th United States Congress - summary. 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. gordonrox24 (talk) 22:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello,

I read your discussion on User:Ironholds's talk page. If it is such a great problem, I fail to see what you could just not have the page protected so you could add your information.--gordonrox24 (talk) 22:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I will sure try.

Let me get this straight. Have you already added the information on the 56th United States Congress - summary to the 56th United States Congress article? If so, was it removed?--gordonrox24 (talk) 22:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I have given up fighting on the main article and am writing another article in the hope it will be left alone. The ones you see look alot alike, but there are significant differences, context and display, to the unfamiliar reader. Other articles will have more difference. I am seeking a logical series of articles with the same information, well sourced, and with the same information in the same place, so readers can find it. I have not changed the 56th United States Congress article (although I would like to), but have supplemented it. I did not know I could protect the information??? If so, please advise. As I say, I threw up my hands a year ago after writing some 200 such articles and perhaps something changed. stilltim (talk) 22:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, if the information you are writing is factual, it does belong in the original article. If people keep removing it, the article can be protected, so that some of the info cannot be removed. We can look into it if you would like.--gordonrox24 (talk) 22:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Can you please go through your article and point out to me what information you added to the original article? This will help in getting the original article and your new information protected. Thanks!--gordonrox24 (talk) 19:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You might want to actively comment on the AfD nomination, by the way. Ironholds (talk) 11:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of 46th United States Congress - summary
I have nominated 46th United States Congress - summary, 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/46th United States Congress - summary. 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. Ironholds (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Ordinal congresses
I'm interested in helping resolve the ordinal issue as well, but I, like many editors, don't see a purpose for the myriad "XXth Congress - (insert fork here)" articles. Could you describe your intent behind creating the various forks? Is is merely to provide a different format to presenting the information, or does it provide any substantiall new information that could be included in a single article. For example, I see no reason to have one article that display membership based on states and another that displays based on political party. If you're goal is to allow for a different way to sort and display the information, wouldn't a sortable table provide that information better than having three different articles? Or is there some other reason (besides how the information is displayed) that you see a need for the different articles. I, for one, like the current format of the main "Xth Congress" articles, including infoboxes and shortened TOC. WP:MOSDATE also says we shouldn't like dates for the sake of linking dates. But I'm open to alternatives if you can convince me otherwise.DCmacnut &lt; &gt;  21:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is any absolute right answer to your question. Generally speaking individual accounts with a particular organization seems easier to find & use, rather than combine three or four presentations into one immense article. Depending on what any one person is doing, the preference may vary. How about we leave the main article as it is and I build a set as I am doing and when the corpus is done the picture may be clearer. stilltim (talk) 22:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that's the problem. We have 4 articles about the same subject, each with slightly different formats. I'm afraid consensus is that is unnecessarily redundant. I think we could move membership changes to its own fork, but there's no need for a "political parties" version nor a "state delegations" version. For the same reason, I don't see any utility in the "summary" version you've created. I've made my views in support of deleting the summary versions at various AFD discussions, but think, as you said, some of this will work itself out in the wash. It's not like having 4 or 5 duplicate articles is destroying WP. That's the beauty of being able to add and subtract at will. I would still ask, though -- what is "new" or different about your summary article that isn't or can't be done within the structure of the main ordinal articles?DCmacnut &lt; &gt;  00:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

34th United States Congress - summary
I would have thought it would've seemed obvious, but the correct response when all your articles under a certain format is up for deletion is not to write more of them. Ironholds (talk) 01:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

May 2009
Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Your first article. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Since nothing else seems to get through to you Ironholds (talk) 12:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Your articles are going to be deleted, that isn't in question. They are going to go. Short of 200 sympathetic "keep" votes on that AfD, they are gone. You've been offered help resolving this dispute, and told we'd be willing to merge the relevant sections of your articles, but rather than indicating where these sections are you've instead chosen to spend your time creating more completely useless pages. You know something I don't? You have higher access to The Almighty Truth? Tell me what this is, then. Because right now, me and everyone else at that AfD just see a user creating 200 useless pages he can mess around with because he wasn't allowed to include something in an article and doesn't know how to lose gracefully. Ironholds (talk) 13:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The right way to proceed here is to discuss the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress, where a discussion has already begun. -Rrius (talk) 05:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of 40th United States Congress - summary
I have nominated 40th United States Congress - summary, 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/40th United States Congress - summary. 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. gordonrox24 (talk) 10:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with 40th United States Congress - summary. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. -- Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 17:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of 30th United States Congress - summary
I have nominated 30th United States Congress - summary, 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/30th United States Congress - summary. 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. gordonrox24 (talk) 22:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of 30th United States Congress - summary
I have nominated 30th United States Congress - summary, 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/30th United States Congress - summary&. 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. gordonrox24 (talk) 22:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of 37th United States Congress - summary
I have nominated 37th United States Congress - summary, 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/37th United States Congress - summary. 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. gordonrox24 (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of 84th United States Congress - political parties
I have nominated 84th United States Congress - political parties, 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/84th United States Congress - political parties. 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. gordonrox24 (talk) 22:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of 84th United States Congress - state delegations
I have nominated 84th United States Congress - state delegations, 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/84th United States Congress - state delegations. 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. gordonrox24 (talk) 22:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of 84th United States Congress - membership changes
I have nominated 84th United States Congress - membership changes, 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/84th United States Congress - membership changes. 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. gordonrox24 (talk) 22:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Summaries
Why are you creating all these "summary" articles that are simply cut-and-paste copies of the original US Congress articles? Cheers! Scapler (talk) 02:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I've got to ask the same question. The "summary" articles seem to be forks of the original article only for the purpose of maintaining control over the content. I saw one AfD and thought it was an isolated case, but you seem to have created tens of them. If you don't get your own way in a content dispute, the answer is not to create your own duplicates of the articles. You do not own any of the congressional articles, and if consensus goes against you, you either need to accept it or argue better. If vandalism is the problem, then articles can be semi-protected, and persistent vandals can be blocked. Forking a whole series of articles in this manner is only eating up time and effort at AfD. Fences and windows (talk) 02:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

RFC/USER discussion concerning you (Stilltim)
Hello, Stilltim. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at Requests for comment/Stilltim, where you may want to participate. Gigs (talk) 04:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't doubt that your intentions are good, but you must accept that creating forks of articles because you do not agree with the way they have gone is not a constructive behavior. You need to work to improve the existing articles instead.  I hope that you can come to see this is not an issue with a few editors that have an axe to grind, this is a long standing policy on Wikipedia (WP:CFORK). Gigs (talk) 19:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Re:Congress articles.
Hello,

Stilltim, I would love to help you, as your expertise in this area is great. It would be much easier to assist you if you would participate in the AFD discussions and would participate in consensus. Until then, I can only do what is agreed upon by the majority.--gordonrox24 (talk) 20:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you create an inappropriate page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ''The result of the mass AfD and the large number of comments on your talkpage questioning these articles makes it clear that the community considers them nothing more than a massive waste of space. If you continue creating these articles against consensus I WILL ask an uninvolved admin to block you, since having all of these pages deleted doesn't seem to be getting the message through.'' Ironholds (talk) 21:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Same subject
There's been a decision to "delete" at several AfDs, but there are so many articles, it's hard to keep track of. Are there any existing discussions at WP:DRV about overturning any of these deletion decisions? (Watchlisting) - Dank (push to talk) 21:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Deleted Articles.
If it would make you feel better, you can ask an admin to send you a copy of your deleted articles for your reference, and so your work isn't lost.--gordonrox24 (talk) 00:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Stilltim/drafts - 21
Some points on the draft.
 * 1) I don't personally have a problem with the current way the Ordinal Congresses are formated. I think the present the information in as good away as any. I know you have your own idea of how it should be, but I don't see how your way is any superior to the other. Both are easy to read and present factual information. Having said that, I am open to suggestions.
 * 2) The articles need an infobox. I know you generally disagree with their use, but they makes navigation and key information about the sessions and years of the congress easier to display, so it doesn't need to be in the body of the article. This is probably going to be a non-negotiable issue starting out with many editors.
 * 3) Date linking. Personal preference, but I don't lick linking dates. There's an arbitration going on to resolve autolinking, but this will also be a sticking point. It comes down to editor preference.
 * 4) Length. Listing all the "sortings" as I call them makes the article overly long. The TOC is too long to be a useful navigation tool Somehow, these should be shortened through the use of tables or other column formating. Also, the TOC should be limited. Not sure that the individual states need to be 2nd level headers in your delegation section.
 * 5) Party identification. Democratic should be Jacksonian and National Republican should be Anti-Jacksonian. I know we've debated this before, but Democratic and National Republican did not exist as parties until later, and by the 25th Congress the National Republicans were gone and replaced by the Whigs. I know Martis uses these party names to identify the members, but he is only one historian (a good one, but just one). The Official Congressional Directory, Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, and the Clerk of the House all use Jacksonian and Anti-Jacksonian for these years (20th Congress - 24th Congress). Regardless of what Martis says, we should use what the majority of reliable sources uses for party identity.
 * 6) Membership changes. Somehow the tables should be shortened and cleaned up, similar to 111th Congress, using cell shading from, rather than the row headers. The early congresses had a lot of turn over, so they're going to be larger, but there's room for improvement.
 * 7) Membership detail. Do we really need to have the detail of why/how someone resigned/left office or was appointed/elected under "Membership detail by state" and "Membership detail by Chamber/Party"? That information is already provided under Membership changes later. Just including the date the person left office/took office should suffice here. That's my biggest concern. We can provide comprehensive information without repeating the same information in 3 different sections.
 * 8) Officers/Employees. I don't care how it's labled, but to make it shorter, why not put the title/officeholder name on the same line? Also, remove redundant links from the pipe. For example we don't need "Secretary of the Senate" spelled out if it's under the Senate heading. Secretary should suffice.
 * 9) Consensus. I encourage you to post a link to your suggestions at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress. I know you get burnt out on some criticisms, but that is the only way we are going to be able to resolve your concerns. Not all of your suggestions may succeed, but some might. And the group process might just develop a good series of articles.DCmacnut &lt; &gt;  01:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) Sorting issues. A new question for you. Why do you think we need to sort info by both state and by party? There is already Senate by state and House by state. What additional information does then sorting all delegations by state provide? we already have articles that cover that (congressional delegations from state X). Also, party identification is already next to each member name. I know some comphrehensive encyclopedias provide different bound volumes, each presenting the information in a different format (Canon's Committees in the U.S. Congress 1789-1946 comes to mind), but do we need that on Wikipedia? I'm just opening that up for discussion, because you seem to feel it is needed, but to date have not been able to explain exactly why it is needed. I await your reply on this and the other items above.DCmacnut &lt; &gt;  12:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of 21st Unites States Congress- second
I have nominated 21st Unites States Congress- second, 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/21st Unites States Congress- second. 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. gordonrox24 (talk) 19:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Still problems
You don't seem to have corrected any of the points brought up in the RfC. You were asked to communicate with the involved parties, particularly Wikiproject Congress, and cease from making articles that fit in with your personal opinion of how things should be styled. You've failed to communicate with WP:Congress, and I can see a truly excessive number of drafts in your userspace. "Don't do this" does not mean "don't do this here". I can understand one draft per style to work out something you like, but you've got copies of a dozen different near-identical pages, all covering the same thing.

The RfC brought several issues up, and you were asked to correct them. If you don't do so, further action is likely to result. Ironholds (talk) 17:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I am doing the best I can with the time I have available and the effort it requires. I'm also trying to work in a non-public world to protect you and the public for changes for the present. The design of these items is not nearly complete as the request is clearly to include an infoxbox and other points. However I have made major changes to plain dates and data. Have you even noticed that? I haven't made all the changes, but will, in private, before the changes will be discussed. I pray all of you will work with me as I'm trying my hardest to available the best content, and adjust a common design meeting many of the requests. I can't work this way out of public display, but I will give up and nothing will get done if you harrass me trying to get this done too fast. It will only cause complete my walk out of the project. Let's work togther- and agree to keep it off-line as suggested. stilltim (talk) 09:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It isn't "offline". My point is this - you have been told to work out a template that you and others agree on. For this, you need one page. You have created approximately 30, identical pages, with which to work out what you'd like. You have also failed to discuss anything with any other involved parties. My advice is to put the brakes on your identical article marathon and take your suggestions to the talkpage at wikiproject:congress. If you're coming up with ideas they don't like then you are going to waste a load of time by drafting the articles before you consult them. Ironholds (talk) 11:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I am doing the best I can off-line, I'm not smart enough to do it to get it right at once and agreeable on one account to get it right for all- I have to sample several. And I don't have a long enough life remaining to have an endless discussion on all these things. I am doing my best to develop sample for your eventual review. and I'm really tired of the seeming hostile comments made to my sincere and best intention effort. stilltim (talk) 11:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Stilltim, just keep in mind that you should probably only create one or two articles to show people the new format in your userspace, as part of a process of working toward consensus.  It is counterproductive to create dozens of articles using a format that is not yet agreed upon.  Your userspace should not be used as a general place to host different versions of articles that already exist in the main space.  There is no deadline of course, but user space is not a place to host articles for the long term. Gigs (talk) 21:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Consensus?
I've noticed your edits to 44th Congress and 45th Congress. They appear to incorporate your desire for presenting identical information in multiple formats. Again, I have no preferences, and the way you've done it is clean. It appears to be what you've been working on in your User Space. However, you have never responded to my questions or other individual's desire for consensus on the issue of what the articles should look like. I will not be reverting your edits, but I still urge you to take your proposal to WP:USC rather than unilaterally changing the format. Your intentions are good, but to creating a new format with broad changes and then posting that format without first asking for comment as well as criticism is what led us into this controversy in the first place. No editor serves in a vacuum, and emotions still run high when it comes to the ordinal articles. I really think you should present your suggested format to the project before making further edits, otherwise we might be right back in the middle of another edit war.DCmacnut &lt; &gt;  01:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I was going to put five items in place then ask your help in so admiting as you request. It's not finished quite yet and I'll need your help on distribution because I never seem to get it write- without meaning to hurt or omit anyone. I'm also not quite finished as I got burned for trying to work things ago on my user space, but because of the threats that got me to go straight in the real system. There were threat mades if I was to continue there. Thanks for your advice and your continual help. My only problem is my whole life only gives a certain amount of time to this project. stilltim (talk) 02:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Please stop creating duplicate articles
I've tried to be reasonable. But I cannot support your creation of 41st United States Congress - state detail or 41st United States Congress - membership changes. You cannot keep going off on your own tangents every time and editor criticizes you. You are creating articles on your own without seeking consensus. The proper channel is to create a single template, in your user space or at WP:USC, and then ask people to comment on that template. Consensus needs to be reached before deploying the main article space. I have no problem with what you've done to the main ordinal articles, but the consensus that has been reached is that article forks like state detail and membership changes are inappropriate and will be deleted. We're right back where we started. You are recreating article forks that you have been told time and time again are unacceptable. Again, I've tried to be reasonable, but I am beginning to think you cannot be reasoned with. Please cease creating these article forks immediately.DCmacnut &lt; &gt;  13:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I second this, and thank Dcmacnut for bringing this to my attention. Learn the lessons of the RfC, or this will just go further. Ironholds (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I am really trying to be working with you. I made a very slow building to help you understand. It sounds like you are OK with the main article, but still do not see the value of the state detail or membership changes. Please understand that the state detail version has an organization (by state) of great value to the many issers focused on particular states and a detail that the main article does not have. The main article has a high level summary that many (most) readers get the info they want without going through the detail. The same thinking applies to membership changes, only those in that particular change want to have to wade through it. I could put all this on one program, but your advise was that not be the case, at least that's what I understood what you said.


 * I too have tried very hard to be reasonable. But it does not appear that you understand the importance of some things and get rather insulting of me on something I really think you misunderstand, thereby limiting the presentation of the information. Please work with me to understand this professionally and try to limit the thoughtlessness of some of the comments. Keep in mind that I have spent the last 2/3 years creating 90% of the content of these accounts, so I believe I deserve some reasonable consideration of my comments. I am doing my best to give yours and have adopted nearly all of your desired to design even though I may disagree. Let's continue working together, without the unprofessional comments.


 * If further discussion in a particular place is needed, I would appreciate your help in providing it or clearly telling me where to document. It is not my strength and your help is appreciated. Frankly I was hopeful that from your memo we could be partners with you developing and explaining the agreeable basis and myself doing the programming work. I'm just not that good at conversation. But I am good at building solid consistent accounts if I'm not spending all my limited time in endless arguments. I get only a couple of hours a day to work on this, and having to spend my time writing a response like this instead of actually doing the content is quite frustrating. Your help is much appreciated. stilltim (talk) 10:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I just noticed you deleted my samples of "state detail" and a way to approach this. If you expect to continue work with me please restore their harmless presence so that we can discuss them. If you refuse to I will assume you do not wish to continue to work with me professionally. stilltim (talk) 12:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Response
I have been nothing but professional, and sincerely wanted to try to accommodate your views. However, you have repeatedly refused to answer my questions directly. We have told you on numerous occassions the proper venue. Post your suggestions at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress. Specifically, the Ordinal congresses subpage. You must do this prior to making any substantial changes to the main ordinal articles. One template should be sufficient to accomplish this in your user space, not the multiple ones you've created. You state you've spent 2 or 3 years on this effort on the encyclopedia, yet you repeatedly claim ingnorance of wikipedia guidelines in this matter after multiple editors have specifically told you the proper venue.

With respect to the state detail articles, I tagged them for deletion, yes, but I am not an administrator and cannot restore them. These are unnecessary article forks per WP:FORK and their previous incarnation, your "state delegations" pages were all deleted. To recreate the articles in substantially identical form under a different name violated wikipedia policy. If I had not posted them for deletion, someone else would. They cannot be restored since they violate wikipedia guidelines against unnecessary article forks. Membership changes should go in the main ordinal article as well, rather than a separate article. Everything must be accomplished in one article if at all possible. I myself wanted to create individual articles for each ordinal congress listing all of the committees and committee members for each congress. I took my suggestion to WP:USC, and it was suggested that it would violate WP:FORK and would be overly complex and unnecessary. I dropped the suggestion.

With respect to state detail. I do not see any need for such an article, as above. This is not a paper encyclopedia. I even don't see the need for the "membership by chamber/party" in the ordinal articles, but you seem very keen on including it. I like the way your formated it, but it's not perfect. I question the need because we have party identity and state already included under the Senate and House headings. You have not given a reasonable answer to why that and your other formating differences are needed other than to say it is how you feel the information should be presented because someone "might" want to view the information in that format. We have other articles that accomplish this, such United States congressional delegations from Delaware in a much cleaner format. The beauty of a hyperlinked, wiki encyclopedia means you are not restricted by the bounds of normal book-based encyclopedia, where multiple indexes each sorted separately are needed to make heads and tails of thousands of records. With the ordinal congresses, we are talking at most several hundred, so detailed sorting of the manner you want is not entirely needed.

You indicate you want to work with us, yet you continually work in secret. Your method seems to be "create my version first, ask permission later." You need to ask permission first. Generally this is not the case because editors should be bold, but you have repeatedly been asked to stop since your "vision" of these articles is contrary to that of the rest of the Congress Project has agreed upon through advance consensus. Therefore, any changes you want must be worked out by the group as a whole. You seem unwilling to do so. You cannot, as you say, create your set of articles, and then submit them for approval after the fact. That will only lead to reversions.

I'm sorry you feel that I am being unprofessional, but I am merely expressing my frustration with your lack of candor and straightforward responses to my and other editor questions. You are asking us to respect your work, but you first must show us the same respect by answering our questions and following the consensus guidelines laid out to you. You do not own these articles, but you continue to see intent on forcing the rest of the group to come around to your way of thinking. That is not consensus building. You must also accept that other editors have ideas as well, and that not everyone gets their way 100% of the time. A consensus article will never look like you way you wish it to be, but if you actively engage in the process, you will have a much more productive impact on the project than if you continue your current method. I sincerely hope you will consider these words carefully before continuing down your current path.DCmacnut &lt; &gt;  14:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Please renew my few sample submissions if you want any future response or discussions in this project. stilltim (talk) 17:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You can ask any admin to userfy the deleted articles into your user space. But I don't understand why you persist in creating such articles, after has been made clear that you're going against consensus. Fences and windows (talk) 18:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

As Fences says, you need an admin to restore those articles, of which I am not (I already said that above). Good day to you, sir, and good luck. We are done here.DCmacnut &lt; &gt;  04:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Manual of style for birth/death dates
I've noticed that you are making some substantial stylistic changes to articles on members of Congress. In particular, I notice that you are removing a large number of wikilinks, and are italicizing birth/death dates.

The few pages I've looked at, the vast bulk of the link removal is a good application of the overlink policy, although I think you're being slightly too aggressive in removing some links. For example, the specialized use of "hundreds" is not familiar to most readers and should have remained linked, in my opinion. There are many other examples.

On the other hand, your date formatting clearly contravenes the Wikipedia Manual of Style for births and deaths. While italics look nice, they're not the Wikipedia standard, and you should probably expect that most editors will undo this change. If you would like to propose a change to the manual of style, you can do so on the talk page for the preceding link. Studerby (talk) 22:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Link to userspace article
BTW, you accidentally put a link to your user copy of the Caeser Rodney article into the real George Read (signer) article, I fixed it. Fix diff. Please be very careful about such links, some editors get quite upset about links from regular articles into user articles. Studerby (talk) 23:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I saw your correction, thank-you. I also get very upset as well when such mistakes are made and do my best to avoid them, but alas need editors to help some. stilltim (talk) 23:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Outerbridge Horsey (senator)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Outerbridge Horsey (senator), and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.w1.freedom.edu.pl/Outerbridge_Horsey.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 20:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, just a quick note to say that when you do move content by cutting and pasting from one article to another, it's important to link to the original article in your edit summary. This ensures that the GFDL copyright requirements are met and that users' contributions are recognised (even if the content was mainly written by yourself). Best, – Toon (talk)  21:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Delaware list
I'm bringing it up to current featured list standards. Among other things, that means removing portraits from lists where 100% of them cannot be used. Maybe other lists have this, but in my experience with the FL voters, they don't like in governor lists (nor do I) when there is a gap in the portraits. It makes the table tiny, and marginalizes those we are unable to get pictures for. So, I remove them, and create a portrait gallery on the right side. Now, perhaps we DO have free pictures for all of them (but in this case we don't, because of Molleston), but it's a work in progress right now and I had to get rid of them to do the work. --Golbez (talk) 15:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm very busy working my whole world outside of Wiki right now, and will take time to discuss detail later when can. Please keep your mind out though and keep open. We'll stay pros working it out. stilltim (talk) 01:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Ted Kaufman and other article names
I reverted your move of the article, Ted Kaufman. Like you, I would prefer to name articles after the person's full name. (I shun nicknames.) However, the article title should generally be the name by which the subject is most commonly known. See Naming conventions.—Markles 10:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikilinks
It was brought to my attention that you've been removing lots of wikilinks. I reviewed some of your recent contributions, and I agree that you've been too aggressive by removing too many wikilinks. Delinking dates was recently considered the norm, although removing these is being discussed again right now. However, removing wikilinks to birth cities (for example) is not under discussion. It is considered normal to maintain and add wikilinks to cities in text. It gives the reader context so that they can understand where the city is located. The same thing with wikilinks to other common encyclopedic topics. The guideline that we are expected to follow can be found at Linking. I'd appreciate hearing your side of the story. Please reply to me here on your talk page to keep the discussion from becoming fragmented.  Royal broil  23:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought it was normal practice to remove unnecessary wikilinks that are duplicated, especially with dates. I really don't care if a link is there or not, except that it be done consistantly. I used to link everything possible, was rounded criticised, and sought consensus by linking items at least once. Most of the links kept are in infoxboxes on the right, once again trying to keep consistency. I will review the guideline you note and try to understand and follow it- if I'm smart enough and it itself is consistent. Please understand I have no mission on this matter except consistently and general acceptance. Your help in knowing that evolving world is appreciated, but it seems the single right answer is not a simple thing to find. stilltim (talk) 00:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your explanation. I agree with removing unnecessary wikilinks (WP:OVERLINK). I think you're erring on the side of removing too many wikilinks. The thought, as I understand it, is if some word/phrase/term is common knowledge to most native English speakers and that they would gain little from a wikilink. I err on the side of providing a link versus no linking. For example, on this edit, I agree with removing the wikilinks to the date, although that is controversial. I agree with removing WP:OVERLINKs to businessperson and politician. Everyone knows what a businessperson and politician is. I do disagree with removing the rest of the first wikilinks, like any person/politicians, government units like city/county/state, and churches. Capital punishment and civil rights are closer to the gray area (on the darkest shade of gray), but I'd expect many people to gain knowledge if they were to click on the wikilink. I had an article up for Featured Article about 6 months ago, and I got trained on some of the overlinking that I was doing. I got a good feel for what should be wikilinked and what shouldn't. I hope this is helpful.  Royal broil  01:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, date delinking is controversial only if you do it in an automated or semi-automated matter at a rapid speed. If you integrate your delinking with other productive edits at a normal manual editing pace, there is nothing wrong with that. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

re alphabetical list of DE governors
Why did you remove a reasoned prod? That article has no business existing, it's a simple fork that duplicates an article and is handled just fine by the category. --Golbez (talk) 01:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The article has much convenient use when looking for items alphabetically for us simple folks. Are we out of disk space? Please don't push into a debate about this, there are other more complicated/ important things to work out. stilltim (talk) 02:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We have a category for people looking for an alphabetical list, and I assure you, this will not survive AFD. "Are we out of disk space?" has never been a valid reason for keeping an article that shouldn't be there. Nor is saying "there are more important things to deal with". --Golbez (talk) 02:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me put it this way: It's linked nowhere, so no one will find it; it requires us to update yet another article should status change; and it has no added value over any other article on Wikipedia. --Golbez (talk) 02:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's up at Articles for deletion/List of Governors of Delaware (alphabetic). --Golbez (talk) 02:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I just want to say that I do think you're doing great work here on Wikipedia; I don't want this all to sour anything, but that article really goes against much of how we do things. Very few other, if any, lists have an entirely separate "alphabetic" list. --Golbez (talk) 02:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Just so you know, while it used to be common to have separate alphabetical and chronological lists many years ago, Wikipedia now has the ability to create a single "wikitable sortable" which can be resorted to any order of the reader's choice. Accordingly, if multiple sort orders are desired we now do a single article with a sortable list, not a separate article for each different sort order. Hope that helps a bit. Bearcat (talk) 07:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm fine doing things another way, but we need both alphabetical and chronological access. I'm too uniformed to see how you suggest doing this and would appreciate a couple of examples to help me understand. Many thanks for your help. stilltim (talk) 09:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We have alphabetical - the category. --Golbez (talk) 16:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The one that exists, is one you seem to want to remove, or something else? I'm trying to cooperate, but don't understand something, can you give me an example? stilltim (talk) 17:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You're fighting to keep an ugly list that offers no value other than the fact that it's sorted alphabetically. We have Category:Governors of Delaware, which lists the articles alphabetically. --Golbez (talk) 18:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, now I get it. You just don't want an alpha listing except in the Category index. It is truly not enough. I am happy with the approach seemed to be suggested by Bearcat, if I can just figure it out, simple as it probably is. Can you be helpful? stilltim (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately it's difficult to make a table like this sortable, due to some rows having multiple entries (because of the Lt. Gov box). Why does having an alphabetical list in the article matter so much? --Golbez (talk) 18:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Dummies like me (and I suspect there are many) need to find vaguely known people by time, location and name. An alphabetic list is the only way to do the name- that I can think of. This is really easy and we've spent more time debating the theory than the effort to create it. stilltim (talk) 19:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Frankly, we can't hold everyone's hand. If someone *truly* needs an alphabetized list, there's nothing preventing them from taking the two minutes of effort to do it themselves, but it makes our article very ugly and very unprofessional to list everything twice. --Golbez (talk) 20:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Compromise
I've posted an example of how the original table might looked as a sortable table. Some liberties were taken to make it work, but I think it's a decent attempt.DCmacnut &lt; &gt;  20:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In response to your request, I've made additional changes to the sortable table at List of United States Senators from Delaware. I agree that a standard is needed. It's important to note that sorting tables like this only work with the simplest of tables. Each item needs its own separate cell. If any tables have cells that span mulitple rows, such as United States congressional delegations from Delaware, sorting will not work. Articles like this will always be in chronological order. Some specific changes:


 * I had to put "Occupation" in its own column. The way you had it originally, sharing a column with Residence, is what caused the sort arrow to be out of place.
 * I have made the "other offices" field unsortable. Since this is space has multiple items, sorting it makes no sense.
 * A final comment I would have would be the "Term" field. This field is very confusing at first glance. I know what you are trying to convey here - whether this was the senators first, 2nd, or third term, but someone else might not if they aren't familiar with the topic. Also, the field uses only numbers, so it's not clear which is the term and which is the congress (the header says this, but when you scroll down you no longer see the heading). Wouldn't it be better to just list the Congresses i which they served? What purpose does it serve to know that Bill Roth served in the 32nd Class I term? No historian or other compendium of Congress lists offices in that way. They merely indicate which rank (26th) the senator was and which congresses in which he served (92-106). Reelection to multiple terms in implied by the length of service. I would recommend deleting any reference to the specific term, and just focus on the Congress in question.


 * For more information on sortable tables, you can read the help document here.DCmacnut &lt; &gt;  15:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Specific Changes
What browser resolution/screen size are you using. The Occupation field as it's own column does not cause any wraps on my monitor, so I would not be able to fix effectily without being able to see just how it appears on your monitor.

As I mentioned above, for sortable tables to work, each field needs it's own cell. While the way you combined residence and occupation was an interesting format (and acutally looked pretty good) it still isn't perfect for sorting. It's a lot better than the other option, which is to use colspan and rowspan headers, but then that would break the sorting. I can try to work with it some more, but won't be able to get to it right away, since I am at work and have several meetings this morning.DCmacnut &lt; &gt;  15:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the difference between "term" and "Congress" what is the purpose of "term"? I won't make a big deal out of it, I just don't understand it's purpose. Maybe you could a summary description before the tables telling readers what each field means.


 * As far as wrapping and narrow columns, the birth/death and service date have forced wrapping throug the use of line breaks in the table. Is that what you're talking about? We can just remove those line breaks and see what that does. I think occupation should just be deleted entirely. It adds nothing to this table, which is to describe what senators served and when.DCmacnut &lt; &gt;  15:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Alphabetical list
Please see Articles for deletion/List of United States Senators from Delaware (alphabetic).—Markles 21:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Russell W. Peterson et al
Please note that the Manual of Style does not support the italicisation of dates. Please go back through your recent contributions and revert those edits in which you have italicised dates of birth/death. Ironholds (talk) 09:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Does it prohibit it with authority? If so please note the specific authority where it does and I will follow the direction. stilltim (talk) 09:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not specifically, but it is noticeably absent from the guideline on where italics should be used. There is also the specific guideline "dates should be consisten throughout the article", which your editing violates. I would have thought that the way no other article on the wiki italicises dates in that format would have given you a sliight hint you might be wrong, but there we go. Ironholds (talk) 09:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * So the manual allows the practice if I follow it consistently through the article, all such dates being italicized. I would have thought editors would welcome creative thinking on how to improve the effective displaying of data so it is more readable, instead of immediately assuming some thoughtful thinking was "wrong." I would appreciate your understanding this is only an attempt to develop a more readable wiki article? If it turns out to be inappropriate it will change it happily. So far it seems to improve clarity a lot. And please stop the digs, I'm a professional too and assume the best of intentions from you. stilltim (talk) 10:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It isn't the "effective display of information" though - it is contrary to the format used in every other article. I appreciate that you assume the best of intentions from me, but the same is not true of me. Your previous attempts to make the display of information more "effective" have taken the form of editing against consensus and then creating your own unneeded, useless "splits" where you can enforce your own style when people disagree with your style changes. I long ago stopped assuming that "effective display" is your main intention rather than the enforcement of your own idea of effective display. One is consensus based, the other is stuff-inside-Stilltim's-head based. I've yet to see any of the former, and a lot of the latter. Ironholds (talk) 10:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's resume this discussion when you can do it professionally. My feelings are starting to get hurt. stilltim (talk) 10:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "professionally"? I am. I see no use of profanity or deliberately hurtful comments, I'm just describing your style of improving the display of information. So far it has run: 1) you make changes to a lot of articles with no prior discussion because you feel it looks better. 2) people revert them. 3) you create your own articles on the subject which you can play with as you wish. 4) people nominate them for deletion, and you invoke the "Wikipedia is not paper-based" rule, ignoring that they are not at all beneficial to the encyclopedia. 5) it starts all over again. I've seen this happen in two different sets of articles so far. Now I see you start at point 1 again - explain why I should assume good faith? Ironholds (talk) 10:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * A general rule you might like to apply in future: look at what other people are doing. If nobody else anywhere on the wiki is italicising dates, they probably shouldn't be italicised. Try and at least pretend to apply the manual of style rather than doing your own thing. I note your comment on your userpage about how wikipedia stifles creativity - too bad. If this place isn't conductive for you, just leave. Wikipedia has a set of "house styles". If you don't like these, try and get new consensus to get things changed, don't just edit willy-nilly and then claim that the problem is "people who struggle to even understand the issue". Hint; if the only person arguing for something is you, you're probably in the wrong. Ironholds (talk) 12:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, Stilltim. We're actually having a discussion about italicizing dates over at the WP:MOS talk page right now. So far, we're divided about whether the MoS specifically prohibits italics on dates, but most of us are in agreement that changing non-italicized dates to italicized dates constitutes at the very least an optional style change (like the serial comma vs. not or British vs. American English on non-regional articles). I can see why you might have thought that no one would mind such a small change, but Ironholds is demonstrating that it is the sort of thing that other editors care about. If you were to make a habit of raising the matter of italicizing dates on the individual articles' talk pages so that others might weigh in, that would put you more in the right than you are at the moment. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Delaware
I apologise for one of those, at least - it was made on the assumption that Princeton College needed to be linked to somewhere. Since Princeton College redirects to Princeton U anyway, there isn't a problem - my apologies for that. Ironholds (talk) 14:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * this, however? Why the delinking? Ironholds (talk) 14:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you mean "How can a footnote come off every sentence and things still be right?" Ironholds (talk) 14:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, re Biden, there's a lot of sentences all footnoted that makes the paragraph really awkward to me, maybe unreadable. Yet the reference is valid and should not go away. How does the information presented in a way a 15 year old doesn't have to wade through this and turn away, and still preserve the integrity of the source of the data? I'll have the answer to your other questions in a minute or two. stilltim (talk) 14:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Normally only one footnote is needed per point, unless it is a point that requires multiple footnotes ("many historians belive [historian 1] [historian 2] [historian 3]" sort of thing). I'll take a closer look at the article when I have a moment, I'm at work at the mo. Ironholds (talk) 14:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Category Descriptions
When writing category descriptions, it is not necessary to explain that the smaller categories may be expanded later as Wikipedia is constantly expanded upon. If you have any questions on this, please feel free to ask me on my Talk page. --TommyBoy (talk) 21:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

why are you delinking?
In edits like this one, what is the purpose of removing wikilinks to things like important places and people? It would seem if a reader came across some of the terms that you delinked, they may want to find out more. I've restored them. Elpiseos (talk) 13:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * May I recommend if you err on the side of underlinking, then simply leave currently linked items alone unless they are plain English words or terms whose meaning can be understood by most readers. I can appreciate not adding new wikilinks, but it seems very unconstructive to remove helpful wikilinks. Elpiseos (talk) 13:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

italicising dates
Tim, I see that most of the articles in your contribs list have had their dates of birth and death italicised. Why? This has been discussed at MoS talk, and there appears to be no reason to impose this formatting (I'd like to hear your reasons for it). We could also italicise names and places, but why would we? As a general rule, the more unnecessary formatting is used, the more the formatting is weakened as a device for highlighting and conveying other meanings. Italics is, in fact, slightly more difficult to read than roman face. That is why it is used judiciously. Tony  (talk)  01:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see here. Tony  (talk)  01:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I did read your comments at MoS talk, and found this most unconvincing:

"For a couple of years I always displayed the dates in blue, connecting them to the common calendar. I liked that connection (a lot) because it gave good additional information and made the dates really visible. I was very reluctantly convinced to remove that connection to maintain consistency throughout WP, and keep some of the nearly annonymous WP growlers at bay. But it gave up the benefits. The italics restores that a bit. Perhaps if it is insisted that the italics have to go, the connection could be restored. Just my amateur logic for promoting visibility"

Just what is it about dates that demands special highlighting in the text, whether blue or bold or italic? The last is slightly harder to read than plain roman face. Again, why not render place-names in upper case, and people's names underlined? We could switch to using upper-case initials for each main word in titles and subtitles too—it's a common practice, 20 years after the demise of the typwriter.

This really goes to the heart of using the wealth of formatting we now have judiciously—perhaps even minimally—so that it really means something when it is used. The same logic applies to important aspects of prose: overusing "also" and "but" and "significantly" and "very" soon bleaches their effect and makes the writing less persuasive.

I'm happy to hear your thoughts. Tony  (talk)  13:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Ah, I hadn't seen your recent post at MoS talk. Tony  (talk)  13:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is simply a notice that consensus is now fairly clear, and is against italicising dates. Please desist from italicising dates in the future, or I will be forced to bring your behaviour to the attention of the wider community. Ironholds (talk) 09:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Try this section. That isn't "me and my friends" saying otherwise, I've never even seen most of those people before. I don't see any MOS approval for italicisation there - the section is using italics for emphasis, not as an example of how to do it. I would've thought you could work out that, considering the section is on months before days and days before months, it is unlikely to contain additional unspoken formatting rules. By your logic I could cite this as evidence that italics are unacceptable because that section of the MOS doesn't actively use them. I'd also like to link you to "If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to it", right below the section you were citing as justification. Can I take this as an opportunity to question your continued delinking, by the way? Others have questioned it above but I've yet to see a solid answer. Ironholds (talk) 15:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

John M. Vining
I noticed you have done a fair amount of work on this article (John M. Vining) so you may be able to better incorporate a link I dropped into it. I am trying to "de-orphan" the article "U.S. House of Representatives Delegations from Delaware", so I tried to incorporate its link into the Vining article. However, I am having difficulty making it seem to "fit" as a link. The way it is right now appears as:


 * In a special election on January 7, 1789, Vining defeated four other candidates to win election as Delaware's only delegate to the 1st U.S. House of Representatives.

Which is still quite awkward (and it seems somewhat inappropriate to have "only" in the middle of this particular Wiki-link). I was thinking of phrasing it as " [...] to win election as the only Delawarean delegate to the the 1st U.S. House of Representatives," which would make it appropriate, as "Delawarean delegate" reasonably links to a list of historical "Delawarean delegates;" however, I think "Delawarean" sounds awkward. Having "Delaware's only delegate" link to a list of historical "Delawarean delegates" seems a inappropriate.


 * In a special election on January 7, 1789, Vining defeated four other candidates to win election as the only Delawarean delegate to the 1st U.S. House of Representatives.

Suggestions? Peace and Passion (talk) 23:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * P.S. Not to be critical, but looking at the history of the article, you made some pretty major changes marked as a "minor edit." I guess just be careful when using the "minor" tag, and try and use edit summaries whenever possible, it helps other contributors greatly when trying to get into the meat and bones of an article. Peace and Passion (talk) 23:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response on my talk page. You had asked what I meant when I used the term "de-orphan" for the article U.S. House of Representatives Delegations from Delaware.  The article itself does have many links in it, but what makes an article an "orphan" is the fact that very few or no articles in the main namespace of Wikipedia link to it.  It might interest you, if you didn't already know, that you can always check which articles link to the article you're viewing by clicking "What links here" on the far left-hand "Toolbox" of Wikipedia -- see Help:What links here). Based on some Wiki-policies which you might find interesting to read, including Wikipedia's Orphan "Policy" and Build the Web, whenever articles like this are found, it is good to try and link related topics to them (as opposed to from them).  One way to do this is click through links in the "orphaned" article and see if they can appropriately incorporate a link back to the "orphan" in question.  If you don't know enough about a subject to do this, you can always just tag the article with the "orphan" template (Template:Orphan).


 * P.S. If you'd like, when I get a chance I could archive the older parts of your talk page to make it a little easier for you to navigate. Peace and Passion (talk) 05:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response! You're welcome (I didn't notice your message for a while because you accidentally dropped it onto my Userpage, not my Talk...).  Archiving isn't too difficult if you read up on it (WP:Archiving).  Once you've done it to your page, you can always do it to article talk pages that are getting unruly, too.  One note of advice: Make sure you spell the article names perfectly correctly when you create the archive, or you'll be quite confused in the end when nothing works right or makes any sense (I learned this the hard way, as I was trying to archive the talk for Schadenfreude, which, of course, I misspelled).  Look forward to working with you more in the future. Peace and Passion (talk) 06:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Delaware Superior Court judges


The article Delaware Superior Court judges has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Appears to be intended as a category instead

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. RadioFan (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:MilliganJohnJ.jpg
File:MilliganJohnJ.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:MilliganJohnJ.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 22:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Delaware Senate/House titles
Well, I disagree that it is an improvement. For House members, it is useful to know the district and to include a link to that district's page. There were also some members of the Cabinet whose information was changed to remove the number officeholder they were (eg Secretary of the Treasury instead of 12th Secretary of the Treasury). Again, I think this is useful information to have. I fundamentally believe that infoboxes were both readable and informative how they were. Do not frame the argument as merely one in which I am being resistant to change...I embrace change, where I feel it is needed. The more readable, usable information is available the better...this is an encyclopedia.

REGARDLESS of what I believe to be mere differences of stylistic opinion (enumerated above), I have one issue with what you did: templates for members of the House, Senate and Cabinet are not different for each state. That is why I do not adjust them for members from PA or any other state or area. The style is consistant for every member, regardless of where they are from. I am merely trying to uphold continuity and consistancy. There are literally thousands of articles on all of the members of the House and Senate from every state, and all abide by the same template in infoboxes. If you would like to discuss your grievance and try to change this, I encourage it. However, changes are not made by merely adjusting all the pages from one state; it must be a universal change. EATC (talk) 21:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

And please do not complain to me about your feelings regarding the content of debate on this site (ie..."Why do we spend so much time on trivial labeling issues and so little on actual content?"). We've never communicated before. You do not know my feelings about content or how often I discuss them, nor do I yours, so I don't know why you're using the word "we". I'm pointing out an issue that had become pervasive in a set of articles. Again, if you want to take your issue through the proper channels, by all means do it. And if a preponderance of individuals, through said channels, agree with you and decide to change the whole template (that is, for all US Reps. and Senators), then I will happily abide by it. Yes, as I said before, I believe the setup is fine as is, but if a majority of others, including editors, agree with your position, I will demur. Finally, the minor error you addressed earlier has been revised. EATC (talk) 23:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Grammar
Just to let you know, you don't die AT a city, you die IN a city. Please stop putting bad grammar on articles.

Autoreviewer
Hi. Just wanted to let you know that I have enabled the autoreviewer right on your account, as you have created numerous valid articles. This has little or no effect on your editing, and is intended mainly to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. Feel free to ask if you have any questions. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Seals as main image in infoboxes.
Heya. First of all, thank you for the excellent work you have been doing on Wikipedia. I thought to highlight a guideline, since I noticed you have been placing seals in as the main image in infoboxes on articles of various politicians. WP:MOSFLAG says "A flag (or other symbolic image) should not be used as an image placeholder, such as in biographical articles" and "Do not use a flag [or other symbolic image] when a picture of the subject is not available". Please do not think I am asking for you to go back over every time you added a seal, and revert that addition, because I understand it is not exactly a laugh-a-minute exercise. However, if you could please remember this guideline for the future, that would be brilliant. Happy editing. Otumba (talk) 23:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

"Governors of Delaware - members"
Pardon me, but this is a bit much. What made you think this was remotely a valid name? --Golbez (talk) 20:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You should know better than to move dozens of articles to a format that doesn't exist anywhere else in Wikipedia. All of these should and will be reverted, and it will annoy me greatly to have to do it. --Golbez (talk) 20:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey again, Stilltim. I don't mean to trouble again, I was just checking to see if you had made a reply to my post, but I must concur with Golbez.  The type of title you have employed goes against consensus. Otumba (talk) 20:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * To be frank, I give the professionalism that is indicated. Didn't you learn whatsoever from the deletions and debates over your unilateral moves to this exact same format back in May? --Golbez (talk) 20:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I have raised this issue with admins:. Otumba (talk) 20:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

StillTim: Please do not do any more moves without a full explanation of what you are trying to do here, and until you have got consensus from the community. It looks rather as if an automatic process has gone wrong. If you don't explain yourself you may find yourself temporarily blocked in order to save ourselves the huge amount of work of reversing your moves. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi StillTim

I'm sorry for the forceful way I put things above. Allow me to explain.

Yesterday you performed a lot of moves of articles to titles that did not follow Wikipedia naming conventions, and did not seem to make sense to those of us who saw them. There also did not seem to have been any attempt on your part to consult other editors, or to obtain consensus, about these moves. In the past there have been vandals who renamed multiple pages in order to disrupt Wikipedia - an annoying habit since page moves are much harder to undo than ordinary edits. It was because of this possibility that I worded the warning as strongly as I did. Don't worry - as long as we are sure it isn't vandalism you won't be blocked.

Can I suggest that you write an explanation of what you were trying to do with these moves here, on this page. Then everybody can understand, and we can either help or disagree. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I point out this is at least the second time Stilltim has moved many articles at once to nonsensical names, so I'm not sure we'll be getting a valid explanation. --Golbez (talk) 17:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Stilltim:
 * One of the keys to being a successful Wikipedia editor is communication. A good Wikipedia editor tells other editors what they are doing, and why, and if there is any danger that other editors won't agree, a good editor asks first. If you move a lot more articles to different names without asking first, then it will cause much trouble for other editors. That may have bad consequences. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Using seals as pictures
Hi Stilltim

Thanks for creating all those articles on Delaware institutions. It's good to have that information. However could I ask you not to use the seal of Delware as the picture in these articles. It's against Wikipedia policy, as described here. You were asked not to do this previously. Please take some time to remove the ones you added. Thanks. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I actually made a mistake there. I meant to talk about the use of the state seal on biographical articles, not on the Delaware institutions. It is in fact fine to use the state seal on articles about state institutions. And now I look at it, your use of the seal in biographical articles was a while ago. Again, use of the state seal on state institution articles is fine. Please forget I mentioned it.
 * By the way, you can reply to message left here by just editing this page. I will see the edit you make. Sorry to inconvience you. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Stilltim: You can reply to posts on your talk page by editing this page. Don't worry, I will see the edit.
 * As I said, the prohibition applies to biographical articles, not the state institution ones. At the top of the page is a preamble which says "the bulk of these recommendations are also applicable to official seals, coats of arms, and other representations which serve similar purposes to flag images". DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

As DJ said, the use of seals at articles like 19th Delaware General Assembly is ok, whilst the use of seals at biographical articles is prohibited. HonouraryMix (talk) 11:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

List of Governors from Delaware
Hey Stilltim, it's Otumba. I changed my username. I am hesitant to raise this, because you probably already think I'm hounding you. On that point, I do understand if you think that, but please know that is not what is happening. I noticed you created an article called List of Governors from Delaware, citing the reason "consistent and more complete with display with others". I have two main complaints with this article:

(a) You suggested the title is similar to those used for other List of Governors from various states. However, I have gone through a few such lists and the title style is "List of Governors of X". (b) An article covering a list of governors from Delaware already exists. It would have been better to have asked the community to change the title of List of Governors of Delaware, rather than create another article covering exactly the same thing.

Therefore, I propose the article you created be turned into a re-direct. Your thoughts? HonouraryMix (talk) 11:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have nominated List of Governors from Delaware for deletion. Tim, you have been warned multiple times about creating duplicate articles on U.S. Congress, and recently had multiple non-standard page moves on Delaware lists reverted. I really like the formating changes you made to the article, but your constant flouting of Wikipedia guidelines and policies is disrupting the encyclopedia. Why didn't you make those to the original List of Governors of Delaware article. The standard is List of Governors of X. List of Governors from X could include governors who were born in Delaware, but were governors of another state. That's why the articles are named the way they are.
 * Again, I like your new version, but the naming convention is all wrong and you should have made the improvements to the existing article. I am going to merge your changes to the current article so they aren't lost. Please do not create any non-standard duplicates again.DCmacnut &lt; &gt;  13:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Please do not wonder like with them until done. stilltim (talk) 13:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, the naming convention is wrong. It would be much better to have a List of Presidents of Delaware containing just the Presidents, and a link to List of Governors of Delaware. I would also suggest that this can be done without deletion - just make the new article a redirect. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I would disagree with such a split, as, though there were differences, the current government apparently considers them not big enough, as the official numbering includes presidents - that's the biggest clincher for me. See: Bedford was the 11th person to serve as chief executive of Delaware, the 12th term, but only the 2nd to be elected as governor. But it labels him 12th. (And yes, annoyingly enough, this means my numbering is wrong, if they're counting multiple consecutive terms) Then again, there's precedent for such a thing - our list of Governors of Connecticut starts at #16, because the first fifteen were pre-independence colonial governors. But the Presidents of Delaware were all post-independence. So, I wouldn't unilaterally revert it, but I'm not sure I recommend it. --Golbez (talk) 17:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Categories
Parent categories need not (and should not) be included. For example, on Charles B. Lore, the categories Category:Burials in Wilmington, Delaware and Category:People from New Castle County, Delaware already existed; you added Category:Burials in Delaware (which the first category obviously already belongs to) and Category:People from Delaware (which the second one belongs to). --Golbez (talk) 17:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You don't understand the meaning here. Pennsylvania does the same. stilltim (talk) 19:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ... What? Please explain why you need both "People from New Castle County, Delaware" and "People from Delaware" in an article, if "People from New Castle County, Delaware" is IN the category "People from Delaware". Do you honestly not see the issue here? Why not put them in "People from the United States", too? Because "People from Delaware" is in that category! If some Pennsylvania article did it that way, that article is wrong. What Penn article did that? --Golbez (talk) 20:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Not as smart as you are, some us understand one, but not the other. This help the confused find stuff. stilltim (talk) 20:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, this is it. There is no remote way you are a native English speaker, I really don't understand how you could have possibly written the above sentence. Second of all, our readers are not babies. They can find their way around. --Golbez (talk) 20:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess I could do what everyone on this site does - clean up the messes you cause. Eventually, maybe, you'll realize this isn't your private playground, but I doubt it. --Golbez (talk) 21:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I noticed you haven't been around a while... and I know it's too late to say this but I'm sorry for how I spoke to you and treated you. --Golbez (talk) 16:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits
Thank you for removing extraneous categories; there is a certain point where too many categories becomes a detriment to proper searching, rather than an assistance. A question, though: Sometimes I see you add lines between the headnote and the top of an article; why? This just adds empty whitespace that doesn't add anything to the article. Anyway, I apologize for the tone of the previous post to your talk page, which this one is replacing. --Golbez (talk) 15:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi. I've deleted the category People raised by Delaware, as it does not mean what you probably think it means. To be "raised by" someone means that they act as parents to you. Delaware clearly did not act as parent to any of these people.
 * Please do not try to create a category People raised in Delware, which is what I assume you mean. We already have People from Delaware, which almost always means exactly the same thing. If you really think you need another category, please discuss with other editors before creating it. The talk page of some of the affected articles would be the best place to do this.


 * Also please do not use state seals as images on articles about people, as you did at Nathaniel Mitchell. Policy says you should not do it. Thanks. DJ Clayworth (talk) 00:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

83rdDelaware General Assembly
A tag has been placed on 83rdDelaware General Assembly, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you believe that there is a reason to keep the redirect, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template   to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. philippE (talk) 09:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm in
Hi, Tim. I'm in, briefly. Are you writing more family material in Wikipedia? Wasn't sure from your voice-mail message when I got home this afternoon. Not what do I do? Let's talk on the phone instead. Ellen

Archiving and Indexing.
When you add indexing and archiving to talk pages like here, please make sure that the automatic archiving is really needed and that the indexing works (by following the User:HBC_Archive_Indexerbot). You are welcome to help cleaning up the errors in the User:HBC_Archive_Indexerbot/logs created by missing index pages. And please add archiving and indexing to this talk page.--Oneiros (talk) 01:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Images
Hi, File:Boninicolin.jpg, File:SpenceTerry.jpg, File:WilliamsJohnJay.gif, File:Tribbit.gif, File:Buckson.gif, File:McMullen.gif, File:AlleeJamesFrank.gif, File:Cdouglassbuck.jpg, File:RobertPRobinson.gif, File:Denney.gif, File:CharlesRMiller.gif, File:Pennewill.gif, File:Walterebacon.gif, File:Carvel.gif, File:Charles-layman-terry-jr.gif, File:Dalewolf.gif, File:TCDuPont.jpg, and File:Frear2.gif are nominated for deletion for missing evidence of permission. Regards Hekerui (talk) 22:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Richard Bassett#Bassett's "Party"
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Richard Bassett. —Markles 17:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC) (Using )

File:Handyirving.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Handyirving.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Delaware Wikipedia Meetup
Because you were listed on Meetup/University_of_Delaware, I'd like to invite you to this upcoming Meetup. AH UDelLib (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Continental Congressmen of Delaware
Template:Continental Congressmen of Delaware 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?) 06:15, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:SaulsburyWillardSr.jpg


The file File:SaulsburyWillardSr.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:SaulsburyEli.jpg


The file File:SaulsburyEli.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:FederalHall3.jpg


The file File:FederalHall3.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Also:
 * File:Riddlegeorge.jpg

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:DEHistory
Template:DEHistory has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Nigej (talk) 14:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

You have been pruned from a list
Hi Stilltim! You're receiving this notification because you were previously listed at WikiProject Biography/Members, but you haven't made any edits to the English Wikipedia in over 3 months.

Because of your inactivity, you have been removed from the list. If you would like to resubscribe, you can do so at any time by visiting WikiProject Biography/Members.

Thank you! Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 18:54, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:BustJohnGarner.jpg


The file File:BustJohnGarner.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Unused. Superseded by File:John Nance Garner Bust.jpg."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --<span style="font-family: monospace, monospace; color:#69C;">Minorax &laquo;&brvbar;talk&brvbar;&raquo; 01:43, 31 July 2022 (UTC)