User talk:Chronicler3

Welcome!

Hello, Chronicler3, 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! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

How can I help you? Compu te r Jo e 14:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OurCampaigns

As the tag says, it currently reads like an advertisement. I suggest you perhaps unnecessary information. Perhaps you should read through it as if you've never heard of the site, and then edit it so it doesn't have the ads in. Compu te r Jo e 14:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me what you mean by "edit it so it doesn't have the ads in"? Chronicler3 14:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)Chronicler3[reply]

Also, you should provide sources for the article. Right now, it doesn't have one single external source, not even the site adress as far as I could see. Bjelleklang - talk 15:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

General Issues with Political Articles

Is there someone who has done a lot of editing of political articles who could mentor me for a while? I want to become more comfortable with the Wikipedia environment. I have done a lot of research into US elections, and I would like to help make the Wikipedia articles more complete.

I think the best place to ask for a mentor would be at a WikiProject - a project where editors who have similar interests gather. Relevent WikiProject for you might be:

I recommend visting the talk pages of these WikiProjects and asking about a mentor. Feel free to aske me more questions.--Commander Keane 02:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving comments

Regarding United States presidential election, 1880: When you have a comment to make about an article, you should leave it on that article's Talk page. Don't make it part of the encyclopedia article. Ashibaka tock 22:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United States presidential election, 1944

You sourced and detailed the VP ballots for this election, for which I thank you, but what are the shifts mentioned in the table and why the two ballots? MeekSaffron 14:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright question

I have some photographs of politicians copied from historic newspapers (mostly 1936). What is the Wikipedia policy on using them here? Will a citation suffice? I looked at the copyright page, but it didn't seem to answer this specific question. Chronicler3 18:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting question. It's possible these photos could be used under Fair Use. They are not under Public Domain since they were published after 1923. What context would you want to use these photos? ---J.S ^(T/C) 21:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are of politicians who do not have photos on Wikipedia, nor are there images of them on the internet right now. Chronicler3 01:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Policy Question

{{helpme}}

I would like to talk with an admin. On the page [1] , someone insists on making a change that is partisan in nature and not historically accurate. I posted my reasons for reverting the information on the talk page, but the user has changed it back. I am interested in guidelines for evaluating the information or some other advice. Thank you!! Chronicler3 11:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, try raising the issue with the user in their talk page. If that doesn't work you can try following WP:DR. If you really need an admin, then have a look at WP:AN/I, however do note what it say is and is not appropiate request on that page. KTC 11:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chron's sandbox

North Carolina

General election held 8/11/1825.

Good job

Thanks for the important content you've added over time to the Earl Dodge page. It's much appreciated.David Justin (talk) 15:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits to United States House elections, 1824

Welcome. Thanks for your recent updates to the North Carolina section at U.S. House elections, 1824). I especially appreciate the additional references you provided. However, I have reverted some of your edits for a couple of reasons.

The colors you selected to highlight the party did not meet the generally agreed upon color scheme for Wikipedia (see Template_talk:Party shading key. You created two new templates Template:National Republican/meta/color and Template:Jacksonian Federalist/meta/color that duplicated the existing templates for those parties, Template:National Republican Party (United States)/meta/color and Template:Jackson Federalist/meta/color.

The National Republican Party (United States) is colored the same as Template:Adams Party (United States)/meta/color and Template:Anti-Jacksonian/meta/color to avoid confusion with the modern Template:Republican Party (United States)/meta/color. The parties were also similar in philosophy, starting with the Jacksonian-Adams schism in the 19th Congress, developing into National Republican, and Anti-Jacksonian in later years.

Also, the official records of Congress do not count National Republican as one of the parties in Congress (see Historical Information for the U.S. Congress) from the House Clerk's website. National Republican only existed at the national level for a couple of Presidential campaigns. Any state-level candidates elected as National Republicans from are counted as being from the Adams party for the 19th Congress. This is also how the candidates are listed in the 19th United States Congress article.

I've left some of your party name changes for now, because this is one area where there is not a whole lot of consensus. However, Congressional Quartely and Kenneth Martis' The Historical Atlas of Political Parties in the United States Congress have been the semi-official guidebooks for Congress. Detailed first-hand election results like those you found on the Our Campaigns website are probably better, hence why I didn't do a wholesale reversion of your changes. You may want to share your sources with User:Stilltim, as he has been a major editor of he early Congresses. Feel free to drop me a line as well.Dcmacnut 19:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Thanks for the response. I understand your points. I don't know why CQ is no longer an authoritative record of elections. It is incomplete, I'll admit, and I only had access recently to the 1970 edition, as my state library does not allow people to check out the most recent edition (they have it, but I'd have to spend hours in the reference section making notations). But since it has data from the Interuniversity consortium, it was the most complete record I've seen so far. I don't have a copy of Mr. Dubin's work. User:Stilltim uses the Martis reference, which is the primary election/congress source used by Wikipedia's Project Congress.

The main goal here is consistency. I agree with you that first hand sources are the best when available, but even those early sources may be lacking. A lot of early political parties today are merely historical creations at best (Democratic-Republicans never existed and called themselves Republicans, but historicals use the D-R moniker to show the difference between the party of Jefferson and the modern GOP). Also, Martis and the Clerk provide a consistent national way to list parties regardless on which ticket they were elected in the respective states, and its that standardization that User:Stilltim has sought in the early congress articles. We need to find a similar method for political parties in the election articles. We don't want a congressman listed with one party on the 18th United States Congress page, another on the 1822 election, and yet a third on the United States Congressional Delegations from North Carolina.

As you get deeper, you'll find some users are territorial over "their way," even though Wikipedia prohibits anyone to claim "ownership" of an article. I'm the one who originally expanded the 1824 election article, and it is only my first attempt. I was hoping someone else out there would have better sources to improve upon it, so I thank you for the effort. Keep it up. You should reach out to Stilltim as well as User:Markles with your suggestions, and maybe together we can come up with some sort of guideline or standard for election articles to maintain consistency.Dcmacnut 21:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our Campaigns

Hi. There's a discussion occurring here regarding whether Our Campaigns is a reliable source. If you could join us, that would be great. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for visiting the peer review. I think the current solution will probably work for the time being (i.e. removing OurCampaigns from the John McCain article which we hope will become a featured article, but keeping OurCampaigns in Electoral history of John McCain). Cheers.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why now?

As I was trying to fill in the incomplete pages on US representatives, I was having major trouble dealing with a bot. And then, as it appears looking at the prior documentation, you came along and insisted that I was swiping paragraphs from the website that you represent. The amusing thing about this is that, in actuality, your site had also copied verbatim from the same public domain federal website, yet ourcampaigns.com was attempting to pass it off as original work. By looking at your main page, this is clearly a big deal to you for some unknown reason. I just have no idea why you'd message me about it nine months after it occured. It doesn't matter how many books you've written or how deep your political knowledge may be, the fact is that you're incorrect as to where I gathered the information. Mr. Vitale (talk) 07:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion for United States presidential election, 1840

An article that you have been involved in editing, United States presidential election, 1840, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Ashershow1_talk 01:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]