![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
There's a line in the NPS closure debate section citing this that read as follows:
The Huffington Post claimed that it was Neugebauer's vote that led to closure of the memorial.
I considered changing it to this:
A Huffington Post article claimed that it was because of Neugebauer's vote that the memorial was closed.
However, I don't see any merit of being in there. It's not notable to cite a borderline news/opinion piece that blames one senator (called an "idiot who really needs to learn his place" in the article) for a vote that indirectly resulted in NPS being shut down. No one voted for the NPS to close; that was OMB's call, necessary or not. On top of that, Neugebauer voted to reopen the parks prior to this incident, though that would be original research as it stands and is also not worth including. For now, I've removed the line and welcome community feedback. ~ Araignee ( talk • contribs) 03:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
To NorthBySouthBaranof: Can you identify (from the sources given or any other reliable source) any vote by Neugebauer for a resolution which would deny funding to national parks or any vote by Neugebauer against a resolution which would grant funding to national parks? If not (and I think that you will not be able to do so), then you and those sources owe him an apology for misrepresenting him. JRSpriggs ( talk) 10:53, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
This would be HIGHLY useful to readers, to know how many days, etc have elapsed since the start of the shut down. Herp Derp ( talk) 19:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
As currently written the article seems to imply both sides in the debate are responsible for the shutdown. I understand that neutrality is a goal on Wikipedia and we don't want to imply either side is to blame but as it stands the article is in fact not neutral but biased towards the mainstream media's favorite "both sides are to blame!". I suggest a section discussing the debate on who is to blame, as it stands the article doesn't really even give the impression that there is a debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.180.127.184 ( talk) 21:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
I apologize for posting this to the wrong talk page. If it allowed, I or an administrator can remove my comments from the the other talk page.
The effects that the government shutdown is having on scientific research is being documented in the "Shutdown" section of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in their Scientific Community page. This page can be used as a resource for compiling a general summary of how the 2013 shutdown has impacted science research 72.203.142.175 ( talk) 16:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
See for example [1]. I wonder if we should thus add an exception clause to the statement saying all 401 units will be closed ("except <list of parks opened>"). It definitely should be included under the NPS section.-- Jasper Deng (talk) 18:40, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
I propose removing the first two paragraphs about Edwin Meese and FreedomPartners. There doesn't appear to be a causal connection to the shutdown, or specifically to the Meadows letter in the following paragraphs. Didn't the 2012 election demonstrate that reelection candidates shouldn't be swayed by millions and billions of pre$$ure?
And about that letter: do we have to write about which representative initially proposed the idea to defund Obamacare—devoting several paragraphs and even a list of every signatory to the letter? Every proposal is assumed to have an initiator, or "architect", so why include it—unless there's evidence that the shutdown was Meadows' real goal...
The next paragraph about the negative media campaigns offers a single uncited sentence suggesting that the campaigns have been effective. Unless there's a quoted citation, the whole paragraph lacks effect.
I also propose removing or summarizing the paragraph that lists all the cities on the itineraries of two campaign tours. KinkyLipids ( talk) 06:21, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The economic impact section focuses on the economic impact of a possible longtime shut-down. This appears crystal to me. Likewise, the effect of departments sections say "will shut down"; shouldn't we rather say "has shut down" ? Regards, Iselilja ( talk) 08:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I strongly object to moving the economic impact section under reactions. First, the economic impact is not a "reaction" in the same way that opinion polls or media reports are reactions. Second, it is an important aspect of the story and deserves its own top-level section. Third, these are not necessarily reactions. The source for Maryland tax revenues was published several days before the shutdown. Nor is the WP:CRYSTAL argument valid as that policy explicitly allows well-sourced, reasonable predictions of near-term events. GabrielF ( talk) 01:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"Obamacare" is not an appropriate descriptor for an encyclopedia, except when quoting people, statements like "(commonly known as Obamacare)", and similar.
Is it really necessary for this page to still be semi-protected?
Odg2vcLR ( talk) 17:34, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
This article is now overly long. I suggest that per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE we should move the detail lists to separate articles. This article could then concentrate on being about the shutdown as a whole. Specifically I suggest the folowing:
I'm not set on those titles, so do suggest improvements. Also, the two proposed splits are independent so please don't support or oppose both just because you support or oppose one. Thryduulf ( talk) 01:15, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have readded the "Current" template,as the reason for removal given was, "Removed [']Current['], intended for articles edited by many on the same day," which, as I saw 42 changes (not including minor, bot or my edits) in a day, is obviously true. Bettering the Wiki ( talk) 02:15, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
The edit made by JRSpriggs here is both factually wrong and goes against the reliable source provided. The members of Congress quoted were not excited because they were blocking Obamacare - indeed, they were not blocking Obamacare and have not blocked Obamacare at any time. The article is very clear that the members of Congress were expressing excitement that they were about to take the action of shutting down the government in order to make a political point about Obamacare. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 09:33, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
This is getting to be a fairly long article. Text may eventually be summarized or separated out into other articles, but it would also be nice to have some more figures and diagrams if anyone cares to put some in. I found one that seemed pretty illustrative here: [ [5]] The existing photos are nice, but don't really say much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.23.146 ( talk) 20:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC) yes, the article is too long. There was a dispute in 2013, a few paragraphs, it was resolved. This is not a newspaper or a blow by blow account. Stephanie Bowman ( talk) 20:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi! I found a source of updating information about the mini-CR bills the House has been passing to fund portions of the government, most of which have been blocked by the Senate. The source is Speaker Boehner's Official website. Obviously the language on the list is pro-Republican, but they can't lie about what was passed. Can someone incorporate this in a neutral way? It might be helpful to put it with the other data on mini-CRs and the House's strategy. Thanks. HistoricMN44 ( talk) 14:31, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
It is not good faith to accuse Wikipedia of outright "lying." |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Ok, might be lying in good faith, but still lying. See the introduction. The government has NOT shutdown. What has happened is large scale personnel furloughs. No department has closed. The EPA and Navy have not been abolished. Wikipedia should stop being so sloppy. The other thing is that personnel are not losing pay. What they are suffering is a delay in paychecks. All government workers will essentially get a free paid vacation. This is a fact. Stephanie Bowman ( talk) 20:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
It is not "possible", it is fact. This is what the FDA is telling employees. Also, if it is common to be sloppy, Wikipedia should not do the same and use the word "shutdown" in a sloppy manner. Stephanie Bowman ( talk) 20:58, 15 October 2013 Not all reliable sources are inaccurate. In the UK, the word furlough is being used, an uncommon word in the UK Stephanie Bowman ( talk) 21:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Please STOP falsely accusing me of trolling. I agree that there is no media coverage over federal employees getting a free paid holiday. However, it is common knowledge that this will happen. It is fact that it has happened before. To deny it is biased writing. A good compromise would not state that they are not paid but to either say that they have been paid after previous shutdowns have been resolved or that the status of their paycheck is temporarily on hold. As for the FDA, it is fact that an employee was told he would be paid later. Stephanie Bowman ( talk) 20:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
|
I realize that the news organization is state-run, but is it appropriate to cite an editorial as a reaction of the PRC? I feel like "International Reactions" should be limited to the public reactions of the governments themselves. What is Xi Jinping's reaction? Ryan Vesey 19:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
http://money.cnn.com/2013/10/09/news/economy/federal-employees-pay/
This is a reliable source saying the federal employees will likely get a free paid vacation by getting paid for not working. The FDA is telling their employees not to worry because they'll get paid.
WP should not falsely state that employees are on unpaid furloughs. That is deceptive. All Wikipedia should do is report the facts honestly. Stephanie Bowman ( talk) 20:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
JamesThomasMoon1979
01:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)This Section is blatantly inappropriate. It should never have been created. Let's not develop it any further. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This has to be one of the most putridly biased articles I've ever read. I thought Wikipedia held themselves to a higher standard than this. Honestly, what do you have to say for yourselves? "With funds from the billionaires Koch Brothers and conservative political action committees..." Do you know how many funds that Democrats have received behind this from organizations like George Soros, Goldman Sachs, et al, backing Democratic politicians that helped create the travesty you see before you? Talking points, talking points, on a freaking Wikipedia article. Get your heads together and make a decent article. This is a government shutdown, not a Wikimedia one. User:Decentman12 [[User talk:Decentman12] 18:11, 16 October 2013 (EST)
|
JamesThomasMoon1979
01:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
JamesThomasMoon1979
06:21, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
The subsection titles, and probably their contents, could use a rewrite. I'm not sure how to best rearrange/retitle the subsections, but right now it has three subsections: "The Meadows letter" (which seems to be mostly a "conservative pressure" section), "September" (which doesn't parallel the header titles very well), and "Change to the rules" (which is no longer a "preceding" event, but which is talking about events during the shutdown). Also, a cosmetic sidenote: at least on my browser, the timeline column is underlapping the collapsed letter signatories. Anyone see this/know how to fix it? ~ Araignee ( talk • contribs) 02:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm wondering if any editors participating on this article are capable of creating and posting map/graphics of Senators and House districts with indications of votes for H.R. 2775, and also indicating party.
-
Yellowdesk (
talk)
05:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Can we please create an automatic Archive for this Talk Page? Not only is the Talk Page painfully long as of now, but also, several Discussion Sections essentially became obsolete the moment the shutdown ended this morning. Therefore, we should Auto-Archive this Talk Page and most of what is on here right now will soon move to Archives. The Mysterious El Willstro ( talk) 07:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
[7] [8] [9]( Lihaas ( talk) 11:33, 17 October 2013 (UTC)).
64.166.239.205 posted this comment on 3 October 2013 ( view all feedback).
How the bill was rejected by Congress. I wanted information on the member of Congress voting record on this issue.
Any thoughts?
[10]. And ofcourse the HOuse version is on that page. All on the record. Lihaas ( talk) 11:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi all! I wanted to let you all know that there is already an article about the bill that ended the shutdown, if anyone wants to help edit/improve it. The Senate used a bill that had already been passed by the House (H.R. 2775), gutted the bill, amended it with new text (you can compare the various versions of the text here - the introduced version is about a paragraph and the enrolled (final) version is multiple pages), and then passed the bill "as amended." The House then passed the Senate's amended version (including a name change), and President Obama signed it, ending the shutdown. Anyway, an article already existed about the first version of the bill that passed the House in September. I have updated its infobox, put in the bare minimum of the procedural history, and adjusted the structure of the bill so that data about the original bill is clearly marked as original and we can add in new information afterwards. Antony-22 got this process started. IMHO, we should not delete info about the original version of the bill - it's part of the bill's history and an important (if a little strange) part of the American legislative process. I'd love to see other editors help out by adding in tons of details about the new bill, its provisions, the debate over it, etc. So, you're all invited to edit Continuing Appropriations Act, 2014! :) Good work on this article everyone - it's been really interesting to watch the creation and evolution of this article over the last two weeks. HistoricMN44 ( talk) 14:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
There's a line in the NPS closure debate section citing this that read as follows:
The Huffington Post claimed that it was Neugebauer's vote that led to closure of the memorial.
I considered changing it to this:
A Huffington Post article claimed that it was because of Neugebauer's vote that the memorial was closed.
However, I don't see any merit of being in there. It's not notable to cite a borderline news/opinion piece that blames one senator (called an "idiot who really needs to learn his place" in the article) for a vote that indirectly resulted in NPS being shut down. No one voted for the NPS to close; that was OMB's call, necessary or not. On top of that, Neugebauer voted to reopen the parks prior to this incident, though that would be original research as it stands and is also not worth including. For now, I've removed the line and welcome community feedback. ~ Araignee ( talk • contribs) 03:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
To NorthBySouthBaranof: Can you identify (from the sources given or any other reliable source) any vote by Neugebauer for a resolution which would deny funding to national parks or any vote by Neugebauer against a resolution which would grant funding to national parks? If not (and I think that you will not be able to do so), then you and those sources owe him an apology for misrepresenting him. JRSpriggs ( talk) 10:53, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
This would be HIGHLY useful to readers, to know how many days, etc have elapsed since the start of the shut down. Herp Derp ( talk) 19:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
As currently written the article seems to imply both sides in the debate are responsible for the shutdown. I understand that neutrality is a goal on Wikipedia and we don't want to imply either side is to blame but as it stands the article is in fact not neutral but biased towards the mainstream media's favorite "both sides are to blame!". I suggest a section discussing the debate on who is to blame, as it stands the article doesn't really even give the impression that there is a debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.180.127.184 ( talk) 21:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
I apologize for posting this to the wrong talk page. If it allowed, I or an administrator can remove my comments from the the other talk page.
The effects that the government shutdown is having on scientific research is being documented in the "Shutdown" section of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in their Scientific Community page. This page can be used as a resource for compiling a general summary of how the 2013 shutdown has impacted science research 72.203.142.175 ( talk) 16:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
See for example [1]. I wonder if we should thus add an exception clause to the statement saying all 401 units will be closed ("except <list of parks opened>"). It definitely should be included under the NPS section.-- Jasper Deng (talk) 18:40, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
I propose removing the first two paragraphs about Edwin Meese and FreedomPartners. There doesn't appear to be a causal connection to the shutdown, or specifically to the Meadows letter in the following paragraphs. Didn't the 2012 election demonstrate that reelection candidates shouldn't be swayed by millions and billions of pre$$ure?
And about that letter: do we have to write about which representative initially proposed the idea to defund Obamacare—devoting several paragraphs and even a list of every signatory to the letter? Every proposal is assumed to have an initiator, or "architect", so why include it—unless there's evidence that the shutdown was Meadows' real goal...
The next paragraph about the negative media campaigns offers a single uncited sentence suggesting that the campaigns have been effective. Unless there's a quoted citation, the whole paragraph lacks effect.
I also propose removing or summarizing the paragraph that lists all the cities on the itineraries of two campaign tours. KinkyLipids ( talk) 06:21, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The economic impact section focuses on the economic impact of a possible longtime shut-down. This appears crystal to me. Likewise, the effect of departments sections say "will shut down"; shouldn't we rather say "has shut down" ? Regards, Iselilja ( talk) 08:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I strongly object to moving the economic impact section under reactions. First, the economic impact is not a "reaction" in the same way that opinion polls or media reports are reactions. Second, it is an important aspect of the story and deserves its own top-level section. Third, these are not necessarily reactions. The source for Maryland tax revenues was published several days before the shutdown. Nor is the WP:CRYSTAL argument valid as that policy explicitly allows well-sourced, reasonable predictions of near-term events. GabrielF ( talk) 01:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"Obamacare" is not an appropriate descriptor for an encyclopedia, except when quoting people, statements like "(commonly known as Obamacare)", and similar.
Is it really necessary for this page to still be semi-protected?
Odg2vcLR ( talk) 17:34, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
This article is now overly long. I suggest that per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE we should move the detail lists to separate articles. This article could then concentrate on being about the shutdown as a whole. Specifically I suggest the folowing:
I'm not set on those titles, so do suggest improvements. Also, the two proposed splits are independent so please don't support or oppose both just because you support or oppose one. Thryduulf ( talk) 01:15, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have readded the "Current" template,as the reason for removal given was, "Removed [']Current['], intended for articles edited by many on the same day," which, as I saw 42 changes (not including minor, bot or my edits) in a day, is obviously true. Bettering the Wiki ( talk) 02:15, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
The edit made by JRSpriggs here is both factually wrong and goes against the reliable source provided. The members of Congress quoted were not excited because they were blocking Obamacare - indeed, they were not blocking Obamacare and have not blocked Obamacare at any time. The article is very clear that the members of Congress were expressing excitement that they were about to take the action of shutting down the government in order to make a political point about Obamacare. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 09:33, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
This is getting to be a fairly long article. Text may eventually be summarized or separated out into other articles, but it would also be nice to have some more figures and diagrams if anyone cares to put some in. I found one that seemed pretty illustrative here: [ [5]] The existing photos are nice, but don't really say much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.23.146 ( talk) 20:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC) yes, the article is too long. There was a dispute in 2013, a few paragraphs, it was resolved. This is not a newspaper or a blow by blow account. Stephanie Bowman ( talk) 20:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi! I found a source of updating information about the mini-CR bills the House has been passing to fund portions of the government, most of which have been blocked by the Senate. The source is Speaker Boehner's Official website. Obviously the language on the list is pro-Republican, but they can't lie about what was passed. Can someone incorporate this in a neutral way? It might be helpful to put it with the other data on mini-CRs and the House's strategy. Thanks. HistoricMN44 ( talk) 14:31, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
It is not good faith to accuse Wikipedia of outright "lying." |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Ok, might be lying in good faith, but still lying. See the introduction. The government has NOT shutdown. What has happened is large scale personnel furloughs. No department has closed. The EPA and Navy have not been abolished. Wikipedia should stop being so sloppy. The other thing is that personnel are not losing pay. What they are suffering is a delay in paychecks. All government workers will essentially get a free paid vacation. This is a fact. Stephanie Bowman ( talk) 20:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
It is not "possible", it is fact. This is what the FDA is telling employees. Also, if it is common to be sloppy, Wikipedia should not do the same and use the word "shutdown" in a sloppy manner. Stephanie Bowman ( talk) 20:58, 15 October 2013 Not all reliable sources are inaccurate. In the UK, the word furlough is being used, an uncommon word in the UK Stephanie Bowman ( talk) 21:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Please STOP falsely accusing me of trolling. I agree that there is no media coverage over federal employees getting a free paid holiday. However, it is common knowledge that this will happen. It is fact that it has happened before. To deny it is biased writing. A good compromise would not state that they are not paid but to either say that they have been paid after previous shutdowns have been resolved or that the status of their paycheck is temporarily on hold. As for the FDA, it is fact that an employee was told he would be paid later. Stephanie Bowman ( talk) 20:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
|
I realize that the news organization is state-run, but is it appropriate to cite an editorial as a reaction of the PRC? I feel like "International Reactions" should be limited to the public reactions of the governments themselves. What is Xi Jinping's reaction? Ryan Vesey 19:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
http://money.cnn.com/2013/10/09/news/economy/federal-employees-pay/
This is a reliable source saying the federal employees will likely get a free paid vacation by getting paid for not working. The FDA is telling their employees not to worry because they'll get paid.
WP should not falsely state that employees are on unpaid furloughs. That is deceptive. All Wikipedia should do is report the facts honestly. Stephanie Bowman ( talk) 20:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
JamesThomasMoon1979
01:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)This Section is blatantly inappropriate. It should never have been created. Let's not develop it any further. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This has to be one of the most putridly biased articles I've ever read. I thought Wikipedia held themselves to a higher standard than this. Honestly, what do you have to say for yourselves? "With funds from the billionaires Koch Brothers and conservative political action committees..." Do you know how many funds that Democrats have received behind this from organizations like George Soros, Goldman Sachs, et al, backing Democratic politicians that helped create the travesty you see before you? Talking points, talking points, on a freaking Wikipedia article. Get your heads together and make a decent article. This is a government shutdown, not a Wikimedia one. User:Decentman12 [[User talk:Decentman12] 18:11, 16 October 2013 (EST)
|
JamesThomasMoon1979
01:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
JamesThomasMoon1979
06:21, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
The subsection titles, and probably their contents, could use a rewrite. I'm not sure how to best rearrange/retitle the subsections, but right now it has three subsections: "The Meadows letter" (which seems to be mostly a "conservative pressure" section), "September" (which doesn't parallel the header titles very well), and "Change to the rules" (which is no longer a "preceding" event, but which is talking about events during the shutdown). Also, a cosmetic sidenote: at least on my browser, the timeline column is underlapping the collapsed letter signatories. Anyone see this/know how to fix it? ~ Araignee ( talk • contribs) 02:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm wondering if any editors participating on this article are capable of creating and posting map/graphics of Senators and House districts with indications of votes for H.R. 2775, and also indicating party.
-
Yellowdesk (
talk)
05:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Can we please create an automatic Archive for this Talk Page? Not only is the Talk Page painfully long as of now, but also, several Discussion Sections essentially became obsolete the moment the shutdown ended this morning. Therefore, we should Auto-Archive this Talk Page and most of what is on here right now will soon move to Archives. The Mysterious El Willstro ( talk) 07:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
[7] [8] [9]( Lihaas ( talk) 11:33, 17 October 2013 (UTC)).
64.166.239.205 posted this comment on 3 October 2013 ( view all feedback).
How the bill was rejected by Congress. I wanted information on the member of Congress voting record on this issue.
Any thoughts?
[10]. And ofcourse the HOuse version is on that page. All on the record. Lihaas ( talk) 11:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi all! I wanted to let you all know that there is already an article about the bill that ended the shutdown, if anyone wants to help edit/improve it. The Senate used a bill that had already been passed by the House (H.R. 2775), gutted the bill, amended it with new text (you can compare the various versions of the text here - the introduced version is about a paragraph and the enrolled (final) version is multiple pages), and then passed the bill "as amended." The House then passed the Senate's amended version (including a name change), and President Obama signed it, ending the shutdown. Anyway, an article already existed about the first version of the bill that passed the House in September. I have updated its infobox, put in the bare minimum of the procedural history, and adjusted the structure of the bill so that data about the original bill is clearly marked as original and we can add in new information afterwards. Antony-22 got this process started. IMHO, we should not delete info about the original version of the bill - it's part of the bill's history and an important (if a little strange) part of the American legislative process. I'd love to see other editors help out by adding in tons of details about the new bill, its provisions, the debate over it, etc. So, you're all invited to edit Continuing Appropriations Act, 2014! :) Good work on this article everyone - it's been really interesting to watch the creation and evolution of this article over the last two weeks. HistoricMN44 ( talk) 14:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)