Talk:Residence Act

Untitled

"disinclined to acquiesce to this proposal" sound a bit familiar...JD79 00:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

   The preceding quoted content sounds pretentious, but not potent or portentious. Anyone with enuf interest to look at the changes or edit comments leading up to that talk contrib could upgrade this talk section from annoying to (one may hope) mostly harmless would do a service by saying, at the very least that the material it quotes appeared in the edit history of the accompanying article within, say, the month preceding the date in the above sig line.
--Jerzy•t 11:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Residence Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100918042009/http://www.historydc.org/aboutdc.aspx to http://www.historydc.org/aboutdc.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:07, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

1788 Ratification of US Constitution or 1789?

The Residence Act article states "The United States Congress was established in 1789, upon ratification of the United States Constitution, and New York City remained the temporary capital.". That was all until pursuant to the Residence Act of 1790 when Philadelphia was declared the temporary official capital for a period of 10 years until 1800.

See https://www.usconstitution.net/consttime2.html and notice that: 1788/06/21 Sat - Constitution Ratified 1788/06/25 Wed - Virginia ratifies 1788/07/02 Wed - Congress is informed the Constitution has been ratified 1788/07/26 Sat - New York ratifies

Why does this website have a timeline of 1788 for the ratification and the article have a 1789 timeline? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.232.248.216 (talk) 00:37, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

The Constitution was ratified by the required number of states by 1788, but the new government under the Constitution did not begin operations until March-April 1789 when Congress first met. I changed the word "upon" to "after" to make it clearer. Station1 (talk) 06:14, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Station1. Keep up the great work. Original Question Answered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.232.248.216 (talk) 23:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Fatal subject flaws in MediaWiki formatting.

A very obvious yet relatively unknown issue is with the subject flaws in the MediaWiki formatting.

This issue effects almost every article on all MediaWiki based websites in general. The issue itself are minute yet critically detrimental subject flaws in the formatting of articles.

This has caused 2 incidents such as the: North Macedonia "Vandalization" incident (2022.01.15), and also the [REDACTED] inside of the article discussing the Residence Act, which is also why I am adding this discussion here, even though, at first, ot seems inappropriate to write a complaint on the MediaWiki formatting system on the article discussing the Residence Act. Upseguest (talk) 22:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)