Talk:Roger Wicker/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Roger Wicker. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Appointment to Senate
My understanding is that, absent a preemptive resignation by Wicker, he continues to serve as U.S. Rep. until he is sworn in as a Senator (as, though appointed, he has yet to become a senator until he's sworn in). Assuming that this is the case (of which I'm reasonably confident, but could certainly use some feedback), wouldn't it be most appropriate to maintain current US Rep references here until Jan. 22, with a prominent notice of his appointment, then switch over on that date? Ashdog137 (talk) 19:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- One cannot simultaneously be a Senator and a Congressman. I'm not positive, but it's safe to bet that that's an official rule of the United States Congress. Nevermore27 (talk) 07:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- It is unquestionable that one cannot simultaneously be a Senator and a Representative. However, since he's not yet a Senator...speaking of which, the edits claiming that he's already been sworn in are uncited. I'm rolling them back until a source can be provided -- the source cited in that paragraph does not support that. Ashdog137 (talk) 20:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Finally! Thank you for finally citing a source for this -- this is precisely why we need to cite sources before adding text. Easiest way to avoid a revert war is to do your homework first, so people who patrol for vandalism and unsourced edits don't waste their time. ;o) Ashdog137 (talk) 05:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- The January 22 date was also uncited... the source you gave me was the Senate schedule which says nothing about Roger Wicker and nothing about oath taking. You should check your sources on file before rolling things back to unsourced statements.--Dr who1975 (talk) 05:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- If you look atSenate history you'll see that typically the date ofappointment isalso theoath date soprecedent was on my side. At the risk of sounding childish... your statements were more unsourced than mine so na-na na-na boo boo.--Dr who1975 (talk) 05:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, if you look at the 2008 tentative schedule I linked, then compare it to the 2007 schedule, you'll see that the first day of the 2007 schedule was noted as the date that new senators take their oaths. Further, if you look at the page history on this article, you'll see that the January 22nd date was cited. It's all academic now, but a little bit of research before editing never hurts, for future reference. ;) Ashdog137 (talk) 06:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to rain on your parade, but the Senate has not yet ended its first session. It is STILL in session. In order to prevent President Bush from making "recess" appointments, the Senate has been holding pro-forma sessions at least every three days which have sometimes lasted as little as nine seconds in order to technically remain in session and prevent the President from bypassing the "advice and consent" process with nominations that would never pass senatorial muster. While it is not required for the Senate to be in session for a senator-elect or senator-designate to be sworn in, thus making the Jan. 22 presumption totally lacking in fact, the fact is that even if it were required for the Senate to be in session, it technically is. Happy Holidays to all!Pr4ever (talk) 12:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes... newly elected Congressmen take the oath on that day. Wicker has been appointed... it is customary for appointed congressmen to take the oath immediatly, there is also an exception for congressmen who have been newly elected into a Seat that becomes empty (due to death or resignation... although resignation for the simple purpose of giving the new guy better office space will not count for Seniority purposes) or is held by an appointee. (i.e. if they end up waiting till November for the electection to fill the remiander of Lott's term and someone other than Wicker is elected, that person would take the oath immediatly). This is all also easy stuff to look up.--Dr who1975 (talk) 17:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, if you look at the 2008 tentative schedule I linked, then compare it to the 2007 schedule, you'll see that the first day of the 2007 schedule was noted as the date that new senators take their oaths. Further, if you look at the page history on this article, you'll see that the January 22nd date was cited. It's all academic now, but a little bit of research before editing never hurts, for future reference. ;) Ashdog137 (talk) 06:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- If you look atSenate history you'll see that typically the date ofappointment isalso theoath date soprecedent was on my side. At the risk of sounding childish... your statements were more unsourced than mine so na-na na-na boo boo.--Dr who1975 (talk) 05:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- The January 22 date was also uncited... the source you gave me was the Senate schedule which says nothing about Roger Wicker and nothing about oath taking. You should check your sources on file before rolling things back to unsourced statements.--Dr who1975 (talk) 05:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Aaaaanyway...I'm done with this debate. My purpose from the start was to get a sourced date in the article, as, at the time of my edits, the Dec. 31 date never was sourced. My January 22 date was at least sourced and was admittedly a presumption, based on the facts on the official Senate website, of the date he would assume office in the absence of a source to the contrary. Now that a date for his assumption of office has been sourced, the purpose of my edits has been fulfilled, and I'm happy with the results. The point all along has been that edits need to be sourced, period -- a mere statement is insufficient without a reference to provide it some support. Looking back, I probably should have just deleted all date references wholesale, rather than providing an alternative date based on a presumption from the official Senate website -- not because I think I was wrong in my edits, but because it seems to have made the debate here about the alternative date rather than the utter lack of sourcing to that point of the Dec. 31 date. However, in the end, it's all come out the way it should, so I'm happy either way. Cheers. Ashdog137 (talk) 17:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
ricin
Watching this story? the mailing that may have ricin in it? 71.163.114.49 (talk) 12:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Reverting Senate IP edits
Some were inappropriate, so I'm reverting a large number of them.
DemocraticLuntz (talk) 00:22, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- Your edit summary mentioned: Undoing inappropriate edit from Senate IP address (removing cited info they presumably found unfavorable - I can't find such removal of cited content. Please specify.--Polmandc (talk) 06:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Steve Bannon
Would state no opinion in opposition to Bannon on CNN Oct 24 2017; running on record. --Wikipietime (talk) 13:09, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Bannon has him in the barrel.. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/double-barreled-bannon-he-targets-both-mississippi-gop-senators-n823051?cid=eml_nbn_20171126
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Roger Wicker. 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 http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20061129201046/http%3A//www%2Enavyleague%2Eorg/legislative_affairs/HouseVets%2Epdf to http://www.navyleague.org/legislative_affairs/HouseVets.pdf
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) 08:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- As a note external link and source (1) links to a 404, if this was edited it needs to be re-linked otherwise I believe a (source) tag is appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.26.86 (talk) 08:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Errors in the Electoral history vote totals
I have noticed some errors that need to be corrected. In the republican primary of 2012, it shows vote totals for one of the candidates as being some 285,000, which is greater than Wicker. If you look you'll see what I'm talking about. I don't know what the correct numbers are, just that it needs to be corrected.