Welcome!

Hello, Simon12, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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!  - Mailer Diablo 03:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not sure about the "former" schools, but I figured if I couldn't drum up any information then it was the best guess.

Funny, the things one saves - I've got a Stuy SING II program from 1974, an old mimeographed thing running on three faded-blue legal-size sheets, folded into a booklet. I don't think it looked any better the morning after SING! when I took it out of my pocket than it does today :-)

The introduction reads:

Sing was first introduced at Stuyvesant last year as a theatrical competition
between the Senior, Junior, and Freshman-Sophomore Caucuses (the Freshmen 
and Sophomores were combined due to the small size of the Freshman class.)
Each sing will present its own original musical-comedy skit, written, 
produced and performed independently of one another.  The skits are related 
by a theme decided by the Board of Governors (which consists of six students
chosen by their respective sings and the faculty advisor); this year's theme
being New York City.  The three productions are then judged by parents,
teachers, members of the administration and the Board of Governors.

My SING II program isn't looking good enough to scan for either article, but if you'd like to try your hand at one of the ones you've got, go for it. RossPatterson 02:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm cleaning up disambig links to Unknown, and Template:UKIceHockey team is putting automatic links for the Head Coach line, and when the Head Coach is Unknown, this creates a link to the Unknown page. I'm trying to clean these links up, but can't without modifying the template, or changing the few entries: Durham Wasps, Telford Wild Foxes, Peterborough Pirates, Paisley Pirates, Streatham Redskins, Murrayfield Racers. Any suggestions how to resolve this? (forgot to sign) Simon12 15:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Y_control"

I'm modified the template so it doesn't automatically wikilink; I shall go through UK Ice Hockey teams using the template and sytematically change and wikilink where coach names are available (and have an article).

Let me know if this is not the best resolution. Y control 12:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you have edited a College football related article. You may be interested to know that there is a college football WikiProject which you can join if you like. We would love to have you!

do you have a source for it being at msg? i have not been able to confirm it yet....if you have a source that lists them all, go for it or if it is on the web, forward it to me and i will edit the site. WillC 15:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Working Man's Barnstar

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For your work disambiguating links Dina 18:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a form message being sent to all WikiProject Disambiguation participants. I recently left a proposed banner idea on the WikiProject Disambiguation talk page and I would appreciate any input you could provide. Before it can be approved or denied, I would prefer a lot of feedback from multiple participants in the project. So if you have the time please join in the discussion to help improve the WikiProject. Keep up the good work in link repair and thanks for your time. Nehrams2020 22:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the writer meant "Beltran underperformed early in the season". I think the "at first" meant "early on", not "first base". I didn't change back it as I personally don't remember if he was worse earlier in the season.Simon12 03:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ohh!!! I bet you're right - I hadn't considered that. Still, like you say, it's a questionable assertion at best. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the work you did on the Stuyvesant High School article. It became a Featured Article earlier this year, and today it is on the main page. RossPatterson 04:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Content updated at Talk:VIPatients/Temp

..... didn't check... - crz crztalk 04:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No! I don't want to undo! I just changed over every incoming link! :) Did you go to Stuyvesant? - crz crztalk 04:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

posted - crz crztalk 04:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. I am '99. Here's a gift. Enjoy.

- crz crztalk 04:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simon, thanks for the kind words and question on my talk page. I'm not entirely familiar with the House rules, having only worked for the Senate. The House is a different animal where the majority party really dictates how things are to be done, while in the Senate more gets done by consensus with the minority party. A quick read of the House Rules doesn't indicate any particular ratio, stating that the entire House votes on committee membership and partisan makeup after a new congress convenes. Also, as far as I know, there is no limit on the total membership of a House committee. The Senate Democrats will have a one seat majority on all committees, as I explain below.

Committee makeup and ratios are established by both precedent, the Standing Rules of the United States Senate, or standing orders established by resolution. The Senate Rules state (Rule 25) that the ratio of majority to minority on a committee shall be equal to the majority/minority ratio in the full senate. So with 51 Democrats (including Independents) and 49 Republicans, that is a 51% majority in the Senate and on committees (with the exception of Ethics and some of the joint committees which require equal representation). The GOP currently has 55 senators in the 109th Congress, which equates to 55% or roughly 2 seats on each committee. This ratio was one of the key sticking points at the start of the 107th Congress. With a 50-50 Senate, Democrats argued for 50-50 representation on committees, but many in the GOP argued that Dick Cheney's tie-breaking vote gave the GOP the right for a one-seat committee majority. Since a tie-vote in a committee is the same as a "no" vote, the GOP was concerned that the Democrats would bottle up all legislative action. The compromise was to give equal representation on all committees, and let either the Majority or Minority leader bring a bill to the floor if it received a tie committee vote. According to Senator Reid, the ratios and total membership of the committees in the 110th Congress he has proposed would equal that from June 2001 to January 2003 when the Democrats last had a 51% majority. Here ends the history lesson.

In order for the Demoracts to gain a two seat majority, they'd need at least two or three additional senate seats. There's no magic formula other than the full senate ratio and the committee ratios are generally the same. The Rules also give latitude to the Majority and Minority leaders to agree on total committee memberships to accomodate the majority party, and those appointments are ratified by the entire Senate through an organizing resolution. For example, when Democrats too the majority in June of 2001, rather than taking away a GOP committee seat they merely added a Democratic one to get their one-seat majority on committees. The same is true usually after elections, where traditionally if the minority party has lost seats on a committee through retirement or a defeated incumbent, those seats are normally left unfilled and the majority picks up seats. There's generally an unwritten gentleman's rule not to take away seats from the minority party to create a majority, even if that means exceeding the total cap on membership. An example is the Appropriations Committee. It currently has 28 members (15 R - 13 D). Two GOP senators were not relected, which would make the committee equally divided at 13 each. Democrats took the two GOP seats and with Reid's decision to go off the committee had room for one more for 15 members. But that would leave Democrats with two extra seats instead of one, so my assumption is that the GOP will add one seat for a total of 14 GOP seats and a total 29 on the committee. That's just an educated guess on my part. We won't know until the Senate GOP picks its committee members.

As far as including some of this information on Wikipedia, that might make sense, however given the discretion to bypass the rules as necessary the true situation in the Senate might not match what the rules actually say. There's a section on the Senate rules, but it merely summarized the rules of procedure and points to the official rules on the Senate website. Discussing how committees are composed may be too much inside baseball for some. I'll leave it for the peanut gallery to decide.Dcmacnut 16:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As indicated above, in the House, things can be a bit rougher for the minority party. While the general rule has been to have committees established in party ratios roughly equivalent to that of the chamber as a whole, there is no obligation of the majority to do this. I particular remember the opening of Congress in 1981, when the Dems had lost control of the Senate and their House majority slipped slightly. Tip O'Neil's reaction to GOP expectations of greater representation on committees was to actually increase Democratic representation on key committees, particularly Ways and Means, Appropriations, and Rules, setting up a 2/3 majority on each. He was probably trying to short circuit GOP plans to create a de facto conservative majority (which Reagan was able to do with the House as a whole). The Speaker was perfectly within his rights to do so, but there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth on the GOP side of the aisle. Unschool 06:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know about the merge. I searched around but wasn't able to find any existing info on the Wiki. splintax ^(talk) 14:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, go ahead. If there's anything I disagree with I'll discuss it with you. (More likely to do with structure/style than inclusion of entries, but we'll see.) Neonumbers 03:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. You said you've been dabing links to the page for a while, so I assume you've selected entries based on that — are all those meanings really linked to a lot (not just one or two)? Personally, I think it's a bit much and where links to those pages exist, they shouldn't exist... but of course I trust your judgement (so no reversions in terms of entries, of course). It just surprises me, that's all. Especially those ones at the bottom where the article doesn't have a signficant mention of "base" in it... Oh well.

It really does surprise me. I'm changing "chemistry" to "the sciences" (the two genetics ones are more biology than chemistry). Anyway, thanks for your help, and thanks for dropping a note to me just to tell me what was going on. Neonumbers 03:30, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You knew there would be a lack of consensus leading up to today, and I hope you'll be willing to accept the compromise between your POV and others concerning how Lieberman should be listed on Wikipedia where party affiliations are concerned. 66.211.32.50 05:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is simply a personal message, to you. Your POV on this has been very clear for months, and I'm simply letting you know on a personal note that I am open to compromises. 66.211.32.50 05:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a moment to enter your thoughts for this article as featured at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#United_States_housing_bubble. Frothy 13:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New York Yankees has been nominated for a good article review. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are delisted. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious why you are disambiguating Variety as found in many radio station articles to Variety (radio), an article which does not exist. JPG-GR 02:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments at Talk:Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008. An issue has arisen over how to represent the winner of the Texas primary-caucus hybrid. I'm trying to move us quickly toward consensus. Please vote here: Talk:Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008#Moving Toward Consensus. Thanks! Northwesterner1 (talk) 09:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simon12,

Thanks for your contribution regarding the use of "superdelegates" and for the post on my page. Even though the number of people who write in favor of the use of the term "superdelegate" in the talk page doesn't dissuade Dr Who1975 from pushing for dispute and arbitration (which is his right), I'd like you to know that I, for one, particularly appreciate your additions to the discussion. You've provided an excellent link -- and one that makes me think that our list of superdelegates page should (once this is resolved) pass a standard of following demconwatch on policy and interpretation, just as the main democratic primary page does with respect to superdelegates.

...oh what a headache. Not that I'm complaining!  ;-)

Anyhoo -- I've appreciated and noticed your contributions, both on this matter and on earlier edits. Regards, --Scantron2 (talk) 04:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're from New York. Google knows where you are, and can tailor searches to your area. But that does not make this educational institution the primary use. I got news for ya: it isn't. Bank Street is the main street in Ottawa. You can say it is Ottawa's Yonge Street. There are no other Bank Streets with articles, nor are any other Bank Streets notable enough for one. But that issue is secondary. If I haven't made myself clear, the street in Ottawa is Bank Street, and the New York school is Bank Street College of Education. The two are totally different. "Bank Street" should be at "Bank Street", and the school can be at its page. If you're confused, a hatnote link to the disambiguation page will help you out. I'm not posting this at the talk page, because there really is no issue here. The primary use for Bank Street is Bank Street. Why wouldn't it be? --Pwnage8 (talk) 11:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could just click on my user page to find out where I am. But if you insist, I am in Toronto. I just googled "Bank Street" and on the first page, only one of the results is for the school. The rest are for the street. Typical New York attitude. You think everything revolves around you. That must be it, if you suggest Bank Street should redirect to a non-street in New York. Your idea that the school is "popular" is laughable, because I haven't even heard of it until yesterday. --Pwnage8 (talk) 16:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your suggestion in this afd, there's nothing to merge or move. All three singers' pages already mention the album, awards, certifications and chart singles from the two Trio albums. Absolutely nothing can be merged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Kevin Cariato , has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ Kevin Cariato . Thank you. ttonyb1 (talk) 05:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Republican Party presidential candidates, 2012, has been proposed for a merge with Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Jack Bornholm (talk) 16:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So I know you have everything up to 1999 up, are you gonna be able to do 1998? Arjoccolenty (talk)

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) 13:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Juvenile (organism) 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/Juvenile (organism) 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. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Simon12. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]