User talk:Scantron2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello, Scantron2! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Kingturtle (talk) 18:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

[edit] Superdelegates article

I left the old format at the bottom just until the endorsements that have been added in the past few days since I had saved the article text to begin work on it can be added into the new format.

I listed them in groups by letter as opposed to one large group to make it easier searching for a name when editing to add a new endorsement, though if we eliminate the sections and make it all one, the whole list could be sorted by type of SD wether a Gov, Sen, Rep or DNC Member. (Tjliles2007 (talk) 22:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC))

First, yes once all the endorsements that were added in the past 3 days are placed onto the new format the old format will be deleted. I didnt want to just go and delete that since I hadnt gone back and added in the endorsements from the 17th thru today.

Second, the way its formated its in alphabetical order by last name, just listed first name first... granted theres a chance I miss placed a name or two by one letter. If you sort a section by say endorsement it should then group the Clinton, Obama and undecideds together in alpabetical order as it reverts back to the original formatting two determine the order of the sort. For example, go to the C section and sort by candidate endorsement and you will see that the Obama suporters are listed together alphabetically as well as Clintons. No additional formating for them alphabetically is needed, unless I misplaced a name or two which I said was possible  :) (Tjliles2007 (talk) 23:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC))

Ya once you sort by a specific column you cant get back to the whole list alpha unless you just refresh the page. (Tjliles2007 (talk) 23:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Superdelegates

I noticed you updated some endorsements from the old format to the new... are they all done now? (Tjliles2007 (talk) 22:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Texas primary

Thanks for your comments at Talk:Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008. I'm trying to move us quickly toward consensus on the Texas issue. Please vote here: Talk:Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008#Moving Toward Consensus. Thanks! Northwesterner1 (talk) 08:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the shout-out. It's been a pleasure working on those articles with a fine group of editors. Northwesterner1 (talk) 10:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at Talk:Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries if you're not watching it. Editors are there are proposing some significant changes to Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008. Northwesterner1 (talk) 19:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bill Foster

Thanks. --Bouchecl (talk) 05:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Superdelages

Sorry to differ but add-on delegate pre date the superdelegats. Superdeleagtes (or PLEO delegates) were first created for the 1984 primary season. Add on delegates pre date this and botht the Demoratic and Republican parties have them. I'm afraid the facts are not on your side here. I understand why people don;t want them removed from the list so I have instead changed the name of the list to match it's actually content. I think this is a good solution.--Dr who1975 (talk) 13:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] http://demconwatch.blogspot.com

P.S. just reading over some of your comments... there are comments on that very blog regarding this specific issue... a user named Mark asked them to differentiate between add ons and superdelegates... this blog only supports what I'm saying.--Dr who1975 (talk) 14:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey there... I hope you're OK with the solution I found to this issue... please let me know... I do not want to remove the dispute tage if somebody is just going to go back in and rename the page again.--Dr who1975 (talk) 15:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Demconwatch has made a statement on this discussion. See the latest comment at http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/03/add-on-superdelegate-selection-schedule.html. Simon12 (talk) 02:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I never said we should not use the term superdelgate

Where did you get that from? My biggest concern was the title of the article. P.S. stop opening new sections in the discussion.--Dr who1975 (talk) 21:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia is not a Democracy

Hey Scantron2. This "vote" that has been started doesn't follow the rules of dispute resolution. I do not want uniformed people weighing in on this issue... we need to use an alternate source of dispute resolution. Where both sides make a 1 or 2 sentence summary of their points and a neutral party decides.--Dr who1975 (talk) 20:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The "vote" that was opened wasn't proper because Subver removed the disputed tage. That's what I meant when I said we weren't following the rules of dispute resolution. I will prepare a concise argument and put the tag back up in a few days. I want people to make proper concise points without burying the agument in beuracratic nonsense.--Dr who1975 (talk) 20:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE:Thanks for the contribution

My pleasure.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 15:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE:Thanks for the feedback on the super/unpledged delegates page.

Four things.

1. Sorry about the wait for a response; I had school.
2. My pleasure.
3. I wouldn't say that you two "look like major dorks" or "missed the forest for the trees", but just remember that the name of an article isn't everything; there's also one other important thing to worry about. Just forgive, forget, and edit!
4. Thanks on the signature!

Again, it was my pleasure. Mouse is back 21:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Earlier consensus revisited

Hi Scantron2. I just wanted to let you know that on Talk:Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008#Highlighting cells the earlier consensus to highlight cells based on the candidate with the highest popular vote is being revisited. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 17:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)