User talk:Settler

Welcome!

Hello, Settler, and welcome to Wikipedia! I am CTSWyneken. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk or ask me on my talk page.
Sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~).
Provide an Edit summary
Take a look at Consensus of standards. It is always wise to read the talk page of an existing article before making major changes on it. Even then, I typically ask if anyone minds that I make a change. Very often they do! ;-)
Create a User page--CTSWyneken^(talk) 11:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic Party

How many times do you think we'll have to do this before next year comes around? While I'm here, thanks for your other extensive editing to the Democratic Party article, you're certainly improving it. · j e r s y k o talk · 02:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many times. :-( I think the number of necessary reverts will slowly drop off by next year as people gradually come to the realization that this party doesn't yet have a majority in Congress. Thank you for the compliment. :-) Settler 02:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The special session may help. Septentrionalis 04:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You edits to this article are of interest. I support your changes. Well done. IttyBittyGrittyindaShteCiti (talk) 05:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Settler, thanks for putting up this page. In an effort to separate the media projections from the official Democratic Party Committee convention results, the DNC rep. on June 4, 2008 informs that media outlets are suppose to provide a separate total for pledged delegates and pledged superdelegates. The 2,118 minimum delegates total for year 2008 included both pledged delegates and superdelegates. The DNC rep informs that both presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton would not have enough pledged delegates to become the presumptive nominee after the last primary elections were held on June 3, 2008 without superdelegates pledging support. Superdelegates are not officially recognized by the DNC until the national convention delegate count becomes official (August 2008, Denver, Colorado). Superdelegates can change their pledge after the presumptive nominee based on media projections are totaled. Superdelegates are elected at state conventions by the state democratic party members according to state party rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wkhelp (talk • contribs) 02:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skyemoor

Has now pushed his "Jefferson founded the Republican Party" phase to the point of giving Jefferson and Lincoln the same entry on the List of United States Presidents. (diff). He also declares that Lincoln was a radical abolitionist. (diff.) I know you disapprove of my resistance to him (I accept, btw, his last edit to DRP), but this is the sort of thing I was trying to prevent; would you have a word with him? Septentrionalis 04:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find it interesting that Pmanderson|Septentrionalis is resorting to the same sort of machinations that Washington himself abhorred. I believe Settler has a mind of his own and doesn't act as your gopher. Skyemoor 23:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is a personal attack. Requests for third party opinions are approved by policy. Septentrionalis 18:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arguing about the name should have been left to the Democratic-Republican Party (United States) article. Now, instead of one article to debate the merits or flaws of the name, it's being replicated all over the place. I am not happy about this. I don't really have the time to dedicate to involving myself in the midst of it all either; it would suck my energy away from the many other articles on Wikipedia in need of editing. Settler 19:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Reid

Please advise why you felt it was necessary to remove Sen. Reid's actual words regarding the Iraq War from his page. --TruthWatch 18:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering his words are on the page, I'm not sure what you're talking about. I did however slightly shorten a quote that was too long; it was enough to have the link to his entire speech follow it. Settler 19:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I must admit I did have a problem with the Jay Treaty article, finding out where the vandalism ended and where Cluebot had failed to pick it up. Thank you for doing the rest of the hard work. Bobo . 01:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of List of Republicans

An editor has nominated List of Republicans, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Republicans and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 03:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A small note about vandal reverting

Hi Settler, first off welcome to Wikipedia and many thanks for your work helping remove original research from the Republican Party (United States) article. One small request - after you revert vandalism or other inappropriate edits its a very good idea to warn the user. I've written a short essay on why this is helpful: User:Gwernol/WarningEditors. It includes links to details on how best to warn vandals. Again, many thanks for you help, its much appreciated, Gwernol 01:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't edit war

Hi Settler, I've restored the Democratic Party article to my previous factual edit which I backed up in talk, please don't edit war. Thanks. Mimi ^(yack) 22:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki cares about what books say and reliable sources, it takes priority over yours or my personal opinions. It takes a minimum of two to "edit war." Settler (talk) 00:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But you did not discuss the issue in talk or indeed take issue with my citations there - to ignore my comments and simply revert an edit is edit warring and Wiki cares about that. My citations are fine - they are not opinions about America they are facts, facts you have not taken issue with, merely ignored - I say again, please do NOT edit war. Regards, Mimi ^(yack) 21:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A consensus was reached to leave "arguably the oldest political party in the world". It is not I that have chosen to disregard it. On the talk page, you added some obscure, anonymously written web page that is not reliable by itself. Settler (talk) 02:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Upon further investigation, the web page may or may not be written by John Simkin. Settler (talk) 02:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opposition Party (Type I), Opposition Party (Type II)

hey. I've just tried writing up an upgrade to the 'Opposition Party' (US). Mostly contriubitons from Martis...reading into the Introduction. His Atlas for the US political parties addresses both the congressional caucus and the third party, in two separate sections without cross references, but I've tried to weave both into two article subsections...many individual candidates and office holders overlap, just to make it interesting ... I transferred the earlier Intro write up down into the Congressional majority party ... anyway,

(a) Could you give a look ... and ...

(b) When it merits it, how can the challenge(s) be lifted from the article? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion for 1864 Republican National Convention

An article that you have been involved in editing—1864 Republican National Convention —has been proposed for merging with 1864 National Union National Convention. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. older ≠ wiser 18:16, 11 October 2015 (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) 13:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]