User talk:Markles
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
User Page | Talk Pages | Toolset | To Do | Images | Sandbox | Sb2 | Sb3 |
I will post my replies here on this page!
Wikisource has original text related to this article:
[edit] United States Senate election in Mississippi, 2008If you have time I would like to hear your comments on this page Talk:United States Senate election in Mississippi, 2008#Merger proposal. Gang14 (talk) 17:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC) [edit] With Respect… You're wrongElections that involve both special and regular elections on the same day have thus far been called "elections" on a merged page. The reason it is hard to tell is because it happens so rarely. I only think of two other times since wikipedia started: United States Senate elections in Wyoming, 2008 and Texas's 22nd congressional district elections, 2006.--Dr who1975 (talk) 20:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Dr Who1975It looks as if Dr Who1975 continues to do wholesale changes to articles and talk pages I'm following including making changes to postings you made. As i recall that you are an administrator, do you think what Dr Who1975 is doing is grounds for giving him a temporary block to teach him a lesson? Steelbeard1 (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Wikiproject Boston CelticsOhmpandya (Talk to Me...) 17:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] AfD nomination of Teacher Tax Cut ActAn article that you have been involved in editing, Teacher Tax Cut Act, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teacher Tax Cut Act. Thank you. Burzmali (talk) 17:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] User: Dr who1975's sockpuppetry caseI made a stupid edit in a moment of anger and now a Sockpuppetry case has been opend against me. The thing is, this guy User:France a has only shown an interest in Doctor Who. Niether he nor his sockpuppets has ever done any work on the united states congressional pages. Can you review the case and vouch for me? User:Porcupine is being completely overzealous and it sacres me. I know that I actually make a difference for weikipedia.--Dr who1975 (talk) 14:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Template:Historical election articleWhy not use it in the mainspace?--Dr who1975 (talk) 19:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Template:United States presidential election, 2008As an occasional past editor at Template:United States presidential election, 2008, [edit] Congressional districts lists of representativesThanks for your kind words on my work Tennessee's 7th congressional district. I actually swiped the template I used from another district's page. I will use the template you suggested in the future and also make corrections to my work on the 7th soon.Moodyfloydwhofan (talk) 21:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Massachusetts WikiprojectI just created a Massachusetts portal. Please tell me if I need to add anything or do anything to make it work better with the project. STORMTRACKER 94 Go Sox! 02:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC) [edit] I knew you were going to do thatI hate using the nav box.--Dr who1975 (talk) 15:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Lists of US RepresentativesInteresting...I got that format from Ohio's 5th congressional district and proceeded to enter all of Ohio's 600 or so Representatives in that format :P I'm not sure where it came from, but it seems easier to follow, to me (for what it's worth). Ardric47 (talk) 00:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] renaming politiciansHi. Do you want to voice an opinion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress#proposal for renaming reprepresenatives with common names? I am planning to write a replacement proposal based on the feedback received. Thanks--Appraiser (talk) 21:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC) [edit] Declined Candidates ArbitrationHey Markles, thought you might be interested in this debate between Steelbeard and I.--Dr who1975 (talk) 17:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] WP:Be Bold in United States Senate special election in Mississippi, 2008I'm going to have an aneurysm if I don't ask this.. in our discussion about the campaign web sites in Talk:United States Senate special election in Mississippi, 2008 I said that I was being bold but would gather concensus now that I hit opposition [1].... your response was "Wrong, you should be bold and then gather concnesus"[2]... how does repeating back exacty what I wrote as though you agree mean I'm worng? Was something about the way I wrote it confusing? It's like I said "the sky is blue" and you said "wrong... the sky is blue".--Dr who1975 (talk) 05:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] California's 15th congressional districtMarkles- I'm Peter Myers, the Green Party candidate for California's 15th Congressional District. I want to understand better why you have repeatedly cut information out of the entry for California's 15th Congressional District. First you deleted the names of challengers, and although I restored those, you proceeded to exclude most of the external links, including the incumbent and both challengers' websites. Why? My first reaction is to think that you favor the incumbent. What am I not understanding? Thank you, Peter —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myersforcalifornia (talk • contribs) 01:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Ed Pastor: Electoral history table styleI noticed your changes to Ed Pastor, and I don't think I agree with them. First, I don't see what is gained by not using the header attribute for a table. It centers the topic and makes it clear what office is being shown. Am I missing something here? To have the topic just a patch of text means that it looks out-of-place and might get removed by somebody not knowing its purpose. It just doesn't look as good. As for combining rows in which the same candidate ran... it's a trickier issue, and while it doesn't look bad on the Ed Pastor article, I think it has problems elsewhere. Consider the article Mike Sodrel; with Sodrel likely to run again in 2008, theoretically both columns should be continuous rowspans with Sodrel & Hill's names, except they trade off who wins and who loses. It'd be awkward at best to show this in continuous columns, and would look strange to have the columns randomly cut off for a loss when it's the same person (as in Baron Hill's article). The best compromise, in my mind, is to list the person each time - it is a new election, after all. No need to worry about awkward 2-3-1-4 odd rowspans coming up; just a nice clean grid. I'd be fine with moving this discussion off to the Congress Wikiproject's talk page if you want to. SnowFire (talk) 21:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] TfD nomination of Template:D'ohTemplate:D'oh 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. —Bkell (talk) 22:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC) [edit] Template talk:USRepSuccessionBoxI added description of features in the discussion page here: Template talk:USRepSuccessionBox. Foofighter20x (talk) 23:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Trent LottHelp me out, please... I'm trying to simplify things. User:Allstarecho is being obstinant. See the edit history, the TL discussion page, or his talk page. Thanks. Foofighter20x (talk) 01:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Mississippi Election DiscussionsNow that the courts have decided both of Mississippi's Senate elections will be held on the same day, I have opened a new discussion about merging the two articles. [edit] Deleting links to each ordinal congressIn this edit [3] you deleted all of the individual wikilinks to each ordinal congress in which he served. All of the Minnesota representatives' articles are done that way for easy navigation to any individual congress in which they served. Why don't you think that's a good idea?--Appraiser (talk) 15:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Primary articlesHello Markles, I have reverted your edits to Massachusetts Republican primary, 2008 and Massachusetts Democratic primary, 2008, which had made them redirects to United States presidential election in Massachusetts, 2008. You will find that all Democratic and Republican primaries/caucuses in 2008 have their own separate articles: Template:2008Demprimaries Template:2008Repprimaries. If you think they lack notability you should bring it to AfD instead of carrying out a unilateral merge. Thanks, Joshdboz (talk) 15:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Milton, MAHey Markles, I was hoping you could tell me what you think about an ongoing problem with the article for Milton, MA. Certain editors have been including information in the introduction which seems not to be appropriate, almost invariably unreferenced and unverifiable claims about the "irish" nature of East Milton. The edits are often made by anonymous IP addresses, and the issue has been ongoing for at least a year now. Could you please take a quick look at the article's history and talk page and tell me what you think? It just seems a shame that a pretty decent article is constantly being let down in the introduction. Thanks. SaintCyprian Talk 20:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC) [edit] Mass Primary MergerHey, thanks forletting me know. I need to think about it before I respond.--Dr who1975 (talk) 01:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC) [edit] Category:Spouses of United States RepresentativesAs the original creator of Category:Spouses of United States Representatives, I support your proposal to change the category name. --TommyBoy (talk) 06:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC) [edit] Similar "Categories for Renaming" ProposalI have initiated a category renaming proposal similar to the one you initiated with respect to Category:Spouses of United States Representatives, to rename Category:First Ladies of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to Category:Spouses of Massachusetts Governors, which as noted in the renaming proposal would take into account that Massachusetts has had at least one "First Gentleman", Chuck Hunt, the husband of former Acting Governor Jane Swift. --TommyBoy (talk) 02:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC) [edit] List of Members of the United States Representatives in the 109th Congress by seniorityHey Markles, this name is incorrect and unecessarily long. The correct name under this scheme would be
I think the original name List of United States Representatives in the 109th Congress by seniority is fine, after all, the fact that it mentions the 109th congress in the title lets people know it's federal representatives. Can you please move it back?--Dr who1975 (talk) 21:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] SmackBotOn a recent edit, your (otherwise fantastic) bot added <references>. Why not add {{reflist}} instead?—Markles 00:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] TfD nomination of Template:USSecWarTemplate:USSecWar 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. — bahamut0013♠♣ 22:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC) [edit] Congressional longevityHi. I transposed my and DrWho1975's conversation about converting the lists to table form to the article's talk page, as you requested. I also posted a link to my sandbox, where you can see what I have in mind. JTRH (talk) 17:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC) [edit] U.S. congressional district infobox now accepts obsolete districtsI just updated Template:Infobox U.S. congressional district to allow for its use with obsolete congressional districts. There are plenty of articles for obsolete districts, that I thought it might be useful. I added the code to the main template, rather than creating a stand-alone template to avoid duplication. I coded it such that the obsolete-specific fields will only be populated if the template includes the field "obsolete = yes". You could in theory include "obsolete=no" for existing districts, but it wouldn't do anything. Let me know what you think.Dcmacnut (talk) 01:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Albert Wynn's impending resignationHi (again). I wasn't the original author of the paragraph in the 2008 Congressional elections article about Albert Wynn's impending resignation. However, I edited it so that the speculation was removed and the entire statement was sourced (the information came from The Washington Post). It's documented that he's announced his resignation, that Gov. O'Malley has the power to either call a special or leave the seat vacant, and that it's a heavily Democratic district. I did remove the previous editor's statement that the candidate who defeated Wynn in the primary was almost certain to win in November, or words to that effect. There was nothing speculative, unsourced or otherwise crystal-ball-like about what was left. Thanks. JTRH (talk) 14:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] A UserHi! I noticed you reverted the edits of User:Mateek on the state constitution. I am having some trouble with him myself as he posted some additions on the Immanuel page that I reverted (they were without any citation). He reverted them back, so I added in "citations needed" notes and started a discussion on the talk page. His response is essentially that I am wrong to want citations and that common sense doesn't need citations. This isn't talk radio - "common sense" does need citations on Wikipedia. I am letting this one go until I have others to support my actions. But do you have any suggestions for steps to take next? Steps to undo? I have tried to remain dispassionate, but his incredible bias and undertone of nastiness have made it more difficult. I write you as an experienced administrator from a casual Wikipedia editor. - JerseyRabbi (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC) [edit] ReplyI replied to JerseyRabbi's comments on my own talk page, as well as a reply to yours there, previously. I'll now add here, that the 30 words of so I added to Immanuel seemed supported by the article itself. The higher mission of Wikipedia seems to encourage bulk opinions: Wikipedia:About says: "Visitors do not need specialized qualifications to contribute, since their primary role is to write articles that cover existing knowledge;..." I also have looked into measures I can take to protect my edits on that page and another on religion, because I don't feel like allowing vital important facts to be hidden by anyone. Mateek (talk) 03:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC) [edit] Congressional districtsThanks for the suggestions. I'll work on them. (And it wasn't me that put Mike Thompson being a Blue Dog.) I am also thinking about putting descriptions of each district in their respective decades, since most of California's districts changed with every census since the 1860s. Socal gal at heart (talk) 12:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Need Assistance on editingMarkles - I've noticed that you follow up on a lot of my edits. Cool. I just substantially edited Flood Control Act of 1965 but I can't seem to get the reflist to work. I even copy and pasted from another article, but it doesn't appear or show up. Can you assist? Thanks. Don'tKnowItAtAll (talk) 22:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Mississippi's 1st congressional district special election, 2008Once party candidstes have been chosen, their names are put in Bold text to indicate that these candidates are still in the race. You've never had a problem with this before. Why now?--Dr who1975 (talk) 13:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Error on United States House of Representatives elections, 2008sorry, wasn't paying attention--Dr who1975 (talk) 02:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Template:Elections are historicalYou probably need to be aware of this.--Dr who1975 (talk) 00:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC) [edit] Miscellaneous facts about CongressI've posted a response on the 110th Congress talk page. Your removal of those sections is fine with me. JTRH (talk) 19:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC) [edit] House races with no incumbentsI posted a comment on Talk:United States House of Representatives elections, 2008 about how I think the Gilchrest and Wynn seats should be listed. I'd appreciate your thoughts. JTRH (talk) 14:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC) [edit] Semi-protection of United States SenateIs there supposed to be banner or icon at United States Senate since you semi-protected it? If it isn't necessary to have one, just ignore this. Either way, thanks for defending against the vandals. -Rrius (talk) 22:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] CfD nomination of Category:United States federal commercial legislationCategory:United States federal commercial legislation, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. – Cgingold (talk) 10:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[edit] Massachusetts non-appointment process for vacant U.S. Senate officesWhere would you draft and insert a section about the inability of a Massachusetts governor to appoint a U.S. Senator, and the mandated special election process? -- Chapter 236 of the Acts of 2004 - Mostly MGL chaper 53 & 54
Looks like you've already done some work on this. What do you need from me?—Markles 01:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC) I can't decide if I should start an article--or if there is a suitable article that such a section would fit in. -- Yellowdesk (talk)
[edit] Template:UsscrJust a heads up, I've merged the functionality of {{usscr}} into {{ussc}} using parser functions. I'm going to start migrating existing articles. If you have any objection let me know. --Selket Talk 01:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks!
[edit] Names of Census ArticlesI have opened a discussion at Talk:United States Census, 2000#Requested move about renaming all the year-specific US Census articles. I see that you are active on the Census 2000 article, so I am requesting your input. -Rrius (talk) 06:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC) |