User talk:Ariostos

Hello, Ariostos, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

You are invited to join Wikipedia: WikiProject United States presidential elections because of your outstanding contributions to articles related to this new WikiProject.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:54, 8 May 2012 (UTC) [reply]

You sign your username on this list to join. No confirmation is necessary.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Aristos, I see you joined WikiProject United States presidential elections. Just wanted to say thanks for signing up, and welcome aboard!-JayJasper (talk) 19:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, user. What pictures do you prefer?

Option C/E)

Option B)

Option D)

--Belibaste (talk) 22:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your updates. While you're there, can you also add the primary election dates? Like I just did with Michigan.—GoldRingChip 16:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ariostos, good work on the third party maps. I'd like to use them in a Wikinews article so could you possibly update them according to Politics1 (particularly Goode, Anderson, and Hoefling). Also, would you mind switching states with write-in certification to light colors and states with ballot access to dark so that the emphasis is on the states with actual ballot access? Thanks.--William S. Saturn (talk) 07:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decemmber 8 - Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle - You're invited

Date Saturday, December 8, 2012 Time 10 a.m. – 3 p.m. Location Seattle Public Library Meeting Room 1 on Level 4, Central Library, 1000 4th Avenue, Seattle WA, 98104 Event An editathon on Seattle-related Wikipedia articles with Wikipedia tutorials and Librarian assistance on hand. Hashtag #wikiloveslib or #glamwiki. Registration http://wll-seattle.eventbrite.com or use on-wiki regsistration. Yours, Maximilianklein (talk) 03:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at United States presidential election, 2016 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited United States presidential election, 1880, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Others (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The map in Talk:Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2012 is brilliant, imho; looking forward to you moving it into the Article. — TNKS, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Democratic Party presidential primaries, 1980, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Democratic Party presidential primaries, 1956, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited United States Senate elections, 1902, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Washington (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:10, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, nice job on the convention vote maps, good stuff! The problems with squishing you describe seem to be an issue caused by the way text in SVG files is converted and rendered on Wiki. I tried a test fix on the first ballot map, converting the text into paths, and at least as far as I can tell it seems to be displaying correctly now in both SVG and PNG formats, without squeezing or distortion. However you can see for yourself whether that has satisfactorily corrected the problem or not and revert if it hasn't. --Inqvisitor (talk) 18:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually what I did was pretty simple, I just opened the map up in Inkscape and converted each text box to a path (Object to Path) to work around the text-rendering issues on here. I just did the same on the 2nd ballot map. Be aware when uploading new versions that changes you made might not be showing up right away, you can try purging the file and hard refreshing to bypass the cache, though sometimes the old version might still be displaying for a while even if you've uploaded a fixed version. --Inqvisitor (talk) 03:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure it isn't the cache issue I mentioned earlier? I looked at your updated third ballot map and it seems to be displaying correctly both in SVG form and in PNG-rendered form. The only exception is the 800×465 preview, which is probably a cached image from the original version. Even after purging and hard refreshing, Wiki sometimes still displays the old version for a while. I would wait at least a day or so to let the image preview update before assuming the text problem isn't fixed. --Inqvisitor (talk) 20:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Republican Party presidential primaries, 1992, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Washington (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited United States presidential election, 1996, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Socialist Workers Party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Electoral History of the American Independent Party, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Bush (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the 19th century elections (for example, United States Senate elections, 1898), how do you know who the party leaders are? This is especially tricky for parties with only a few members, namely the third parties. If they aren't formal leaders, then we shouldn't list them as such. Just being "examples" of party members isn't enough in these infoboxes. But if you think they are actually their party's leaders, that's fine, just maybe cite your sources.—GoldRingChip 12:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Electoral History of the American Independent and American Parties, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Bush (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Electoral history of the Libertarian Party (United States), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gary Nolan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	Great work at Electoral History of the Conservative Party of New York State, especially the charts. Bearian (talk) 19:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had to rollback some edits here [1], as they appear to be copyright infringement (unitentional?) given your note that the text was lifted from another website. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to United States presidential election in New York, 2008 may have broken the syntax by modifying 7 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
| align="right" | >0.01% | align="right" | >0.01% | align="right" | >0.01% | align="right" | >0.01% | align="right" | >0.01%

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:21, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just wanted to say great job with your updates to all the New York election articles, including the detailed information about the fusion voting breakdown so readers can see exactly how many votes each candidate received on which ballot line. :)

(Just out of my own curiosity as an election geek, do you have a source where you are finding all this data?)

Just a few issues I wanted to discuss:

There are so many socialist parties out there, and only so few shades of red available to use for them all. Unfortunately there has been no consensus ever reached on exactly which color belongs to which party. I think generally the colors used for the Socialist Party USA have been #CC0000 and #EC5050, so I think perhaps we ought to stick to those for the Socialist candidates.

With so many socialist parties all needing different colors... in all the election pages that I've created/edited, I've decided to use black (#000000), another color associated with socialism, for the Socialist Labor Party. If you look, the logo for the Socialist Labor Party is actually a hand holding a black hammer. So I think black would be best for the Socialist Labor Party.

I really would like to work with you on improving Wikipedia's election coverage, not against you, so I hope you don't mind if I might make some edits to articles changing some of the party colors.

Secondly, while the fusion voting breakdown is fascinating and definitely should be included information in Wiki articles, I'm not sure if we should be using the main election results infobox to display that information. If you look at election result tables for NYC mayoral results, you will find that the election result tables simply display the list of candidates and the percentages they received, not including any mention of the fusion voting breakdown.

So perhaps we should leave the main election result infoboxes alone, only displaying the total percentages each candidate received, and then include the fusion vote breakdown in a separate table. (Again, I hope you don't mind if I make some edits to that effect).

Finally I don't think we should overstate the significance of which local party ballot line in New York a candidate happened to have run on. For example, in the 1948 election, I think the election result infobox with the map on the right side of page, should display Henry Wallace as the Progressive Party candidate, even though he happened to have run in New York on the American Labor ballot line. If you look at different states, you will often find that third party candidates run on many different ballot lines of different local parties. But the local ballot line a candidate happens to have run on is not really significant. Henry Wallace in 1948 was definitely the Progressive Party candidate, even if he ran on different party ballot lines in different states.

Oh yeah, just one minor thing, but there have been some updates on Dave Leip's U.S. Election Atlas that have corrected totals. For example, in New York's 2000 presidential election, there have been some corrections that have changed the totals and percentages that Bush, Gore, Nader, etc. received. I updated the totals, but since I'm not sure what your source is for the fusion vote breakdown, there currently is a conflict where the fusion vote breakdown isn't adding up to the total votes that Gore and Bush received. So perhaps we can work together on getting all those numbers in correct order.

So yeah anyway, as I said, I want to work with you, not against you, in making Wikipedia an informative database on U.S. election results, I really love a lot of what you've contributed...so please don't take this as a hostile message in any way. I just wanted to give you a heads-up that I might be making some edits. Inqvisitor (talk)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited United States presidential election, 1984, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Republican Party presidential primaries, 1968, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Washington (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the full results. I'm curious where the "swing" numbers you added came from and what they mean? Is that change in D/R vote since the last election for governor? I don't see them in the New York Times page cited. -- Beland (talk) 02:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As an frequent contributor to the the article United States presidential election, 2016, your participation in this discussion would be helpful and appreciated. Thanks.--JayJasper (talk) 05:27, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of United States political party platforms is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States political party platforms until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Also included in the same AfD nomination is List of the political platforms of the Democratic Party of the United States. Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy, I've moved the two nominated articles to your userspace so they may be transwikied to Wikisource. Please let me know if you have any questions or if there would be a better place to hold these articles. Thanks, Nakon 04:39, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was comparing your state vote tallies with other sources and am finding quite a few apparent errors in your entries. I came across the problem when looking at 1828. Also, you have not given a source in the ones I've checked so far. I was wondering if you could cite your basis since that should be entered for the section in each election? I've fixed 1828 (other than your missing source), but 1824 still has trouble, as does 1832, 1836, 1840 and the all the others I've checked so far. I am assuming the errors are typographical and that no cross checks were made. Do you have the data already in a format (e.g. spreadsheet) so that you can quickly check values and update percentages? It's a pain doing copy and paste to spreadsheets then checking each column for errors. Red Harvest (talk) 01:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a significant contributor to the article United States presidential election, 2016, your participation in this discussion would be helpful and appreciated. Thank you. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your participation in the discussion. A new discussion has started here with other options for organizing the list of candidates. Please see if any of the new options are better than those available when you voted. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:29, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have added option#H to the list, though I do not personally support that option as best. I would actually encourage you to multi-bangvote, in support/neutral/oppose fashion, on the available options, rather than just solo-bangvoting on your top favorite. That will give us a better idea of which of the half-dozen-plus options listed so far people could see themselves supporting, methinks. Thanks. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your vote on Talk:United_States_presidential_election,_2016#RFC_Survey doesn't include a line such as : Option X, which will make the tally easier in the end. This will be helpful when RfC concludes. Thanks! Spartan7W § 01:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ariostos, you mentioned in your short-rationale that your long-rationale was eaten by an edit-conflict. I also hate those, and wish they would get fixed... old-school software is a pain sometimes! However, I've learned from having my comments eaten by the edit-conflict-monster, that when the edit-conflict happens, there are TWO textarea boxes displayed: one textarea on top with a save-button, which has all my work removed, and one textarea at the bottom of the page (no save-button offered), which has all the *other* editor's work removed. So what I usually do, is scroll to the bottom textarea, select just my own recent work with the mouse, ctrl+c to copy it to the clipboard, scroll to the top textarea, and paste my about-to-be-eaten work back into that upper textarea, before I hit save. Note that I don't select *all* the content in the bottom textarea, to paste it into the top textarea; doing that is bad, that would delete what other people had worked on! But I can usually save my own commenting-efforts, by finding what I just wrote (only) in the bottom textarea, and selectively copying just that portion (only) into the top textarea. Hope this makes some sense. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:29, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Request for Comment now live on the Template talk:User WikiProject United States presidential elections. Your involvement in WikiProject means you may wish to consider commenting on your preferred outcome for this userbox. Spartan7W § 19:21, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your reasoning behind reverting the change I made indicating that John Hospers was the last third party candidate to win an electoral college vote. However, I think for the sake of accuracy, we should figure out a way to mention that Hospers won one due to a faithless elector while Wallace was the last to win via polling. Thoughts? --dashiellx (talk) 15:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't 100% what political parties McMullin and Kotlikoff were in. Thank-you. Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk) 21:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please add the Prohibition Party's gaining of 5% of the vote in 1924 in Florida? I attempted to do this earlier but had strange formatting issues. Thanks! MB298 (talk) 05:06, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MB298: I felt I was forgetting something there. Will do, and thanks for catching that. --Ariostos (talk) 05:12, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thanks for adding so much to List of third party performances in United States presidential elections! MB298 (talk) 00:55, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The map that you created for the Vice-President balloting at the 1876 Republican convention is incorrect. South Carolina had twelve votes for Wheeler, not Woodford. Also, Jewell only received three votes from Alabama, not four. See: https://archive.org/stream/proceedingsrepu00nelsgoog#page/n112/mode/2up

Your map is at: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:RepublicanVicePresidentialConventionVote1stPartialBallot1876.svg Please correct it.Tnmbrown (talk) 14:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invitation to help out on primaries research.
I think a table may be worth trying out, to describe the primaries (and other means of appointing delegates) and the linkage, if any, of a primary to bound delegates. A New York Times subscription is not so expensive, and you could do a short-term subscription, and print out the articles for your own research benefit. I encourage you, if possible, give a full citation to the articles you find (title, date, page number, author, if given), to aid the next person who may desire to help out.
I'm sorry, I'm not in a position to provide much aid on the project.
Yellowdesk (talk) 17:54, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ariostos, I think the right place to discuss this is probably at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States presidential elections. But you are right that you have a challenge on your hands, and I would agree with Yellowdesk that there's not much point in attempting this unless you get yourself access to the NYT archives. Besides, you'll be helping to support the newspaper industry, which certainly needs all the help it can get ...

As to substance, I am well aware of how difficult it is to portray the results of presidential primary campaigns in infoboxes and color-keyed maps. The one that drives me crazy is the 1972 Democratic primaries, which is not that long ago. If you look at Talk:Democratic Party presidential primaries, 1972#Problems and Talk:Democratic Party presidential primaries, 1972#Delegate count, you'll see where I protest the inclusion of inaccurate counts and maps based upon inconsistent criteria ... but people keep putting them back in. And if you look at Shirley Chisholm#1972 presidential campaign at the paragraph that begins "It is sometimes stated that Chisholm won a primary during 1972, or won three states overall, with New Jersey, Louisiana, and Mississippi being so identified. None of these fit the usual definition of winning a plurality of the contested popular vote or delegate allocations at the time of a state primary or caucus or state convention. ...", you'll see the explanation that I researched and wrote about what actually happened for each of the three states in question. Beauty contests, uncommitted delegations, symbolic shifts during the convention ... it's complicated!

Looking around, I think Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012 is the best example of the way to go, with multiple maps showing the difference phases of the contest. But that still doesn't help the "contests won" count in the infobox problem. Nor the popular vote counts, which usually gets distorted by caucus states that don't announce popular votes like Iowa, or states where not all candidates are campaigning (think Dems 2008 with Florida and Michigan), etc. American primaries campaigns are just plain murkier than people who want neat results in infoboxes are willing to accept ... but in any case, good luck with doing this. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:20, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, if you are a college student then you should be able to access the New York Times archives at no cost through your university library. You really don't want to be doing this work without access to this and other important historical resources.

Second, I can't help but think that articles like Democratic Party presidential primaries, 1932 are an attempt to shoehorn a past practice into a modern format and that the "feel" of how politics was conducted in the past is being lost. The article name itself is partly misleading, since only a third of the states had primaries. Something like Democratic Party presidential nomination selection process, 1932 might be better. The sentence "... selected as the nominee through a series of primary elections and caucuses culminating ..." ignores state conventions and other selection mechanisms and uses "caucuses" in the modern sense and not the sense that FDR biographies or newspaper accounts at the time would have.

Third, the idea that "Contests won" has to add up to the number of states is unfortunate. In many of these states there was no contest, or at least not a very visible one. If FDR wins 100% of the vote in a primary, that's not a contest, that's a state party controlling ballot access and/or other candidates not entering for some reason. If a favorite son exists, that's not a contest in that state, that's state party officials wanting to preserve their choice until a later time. And there can be murky situations where which way a state delegation is leaning is unclear. So in my mind you have to accept that some states should be left indeterminate. Or, if all you want to represent is who had the most delegates in each state during the convention roll call, then you need to rename "Contests won" to something like "States carried at convention". Wasted Time R (talk) 10:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've given my answers: Talk:Democratic Party presidential primaries, 1932 . Inspector Semenych (talk) 21:19, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited United States presidential election, 1896, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Speaker of the House of Representatives (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great job with all the data you added in 1892 United States House of Representatives elections!! I've changed some formatting so you can see how we fashion these articles. Not all of these articles look like this, but it's a long-term project to which I hope you'll add more! —GoldRingChip 13:17, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have information about the races for U.S. House of Representatives from 1832 to 1916? We are missing most of the information on the district-level races, such as: incumbents, parties, results, and candidates. —GoldRingChip 16:47, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your honesty over this. The relevant revisions have been deleted. Nthep (talk) 13:09, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit to 1972 Democratic Party presidential primaries, seen here in this edit, introduced multiple cite errors back into the article, as seen here and here and here and here. I had just fixed these same cite errors the day before. When you use a named reference, like this → <ref name="Politicians Aim For The Stars">{{cite news | url=https://www.newspapers.com/image/492151981 | title=Politicians Aim For The Stars | work=The Record}}</ref> — then subsequent uses of the same ref only require you use the 'ref name', like this → <ref name="Politicians Aim For The Stars"/> — which prevents cite errors like the ones you created. I have fixed these cite errors again for you. Please see repeated citations and named refs for further information. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:00, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies; I had been working primarily in my Sandbox to try and keep the different endorsement sections separate for ease of editing, and I had forgotten to take the fixed copy in the primary article to fix the issues mine had in regards to the citations. I've integrated the corrections now, so that shouldn't be an issue in future revisions.

Ariostos (talk) 00:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nationwide opinion polling for the 1976 United States presidential election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fred Harris. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 05:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]