Jump to content

User talk:Drdpw

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Howdoesitgo1 (talk | contribs) at 04:20, 4 November 2020 (bsc.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


The Editor's Barnstar

The Editor's Barnstar
For your thorough editing of articles, such as Presidential Succession Act, that greatly improves their quality. SMP0328. (talk) 07:55, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A message from The One I Left

I don't understand why you thought my additions were excessive? They were all accurate and relevant. It's worth noting I believe. Could you please let me add them back? I don't see the harm in adding information. The One I Left (talk) 03:56, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in the summary when I reverted your edit, let’s discuss the issue on the talk page. Drdpw (talk) 04:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A message from V8americanpower

Can you please stop undoing the edits to the Dondero page? I'm in the process of creating a page for Daniel Casey (the Dondero Grad). He is a grad of Dondero (class of 2000). [1] V8americanpower (talk) 23:23, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edit because the linked name you added, Daniel Casey, is an English actor, born and raised in the UK. Though the Daniel Casey you are preparing a draft article on may be a Dondero grad, that Daniel Casey is not; I based my revert on the information you provided. Drdpw (talk) 00:47, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kavanaugh edits

Nice work: [2]. I appreciate you making it smoother. Unschool 16:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speaker elections: Election box

I've made some (mostly-) minor edits to List of Speaker of the United States House of Representatives elections. It's basically formatting: spacing; {{ushr}}, etc. Thought it could help tidy up the code. OK? —GoldRingChip 12:32, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GoldRingChip, thanks for adding a 2-letter option to the ushr template and for the tidying-up. Drdpw (talk) 12:54, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Provincial Congresses

Just curious about the reversion of the info boxes on the Provincial Congress pages. I believe you acted in good faith, however I am wondering what your issue was with the infobox? Articles on Wikipedia utilize the "former country style infobox" to show provisional governments throughout history. I felt as though it provided a good visual continuity between colonial governments to more modern state governments. I understand not using them for provincial congresses which met briefly or once in the form of state conventions, however the New York Congress, Annapolis Convention, and the one for Massachusetts were different in that they were distinct governmental authorities vying for power with either colonial governments or had power and land in their own right in their own territory. Amy thoughts on reversing the deletion or any ideas on a possible different choice for infobox? Tpwissaa (talk) 11:50, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tpwissaa, various politics and government infobox templates, such as {{Infobox legislature}}, {{Infobox government cabinet}}, or {{infobox organization}} would be apropos. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 16:02, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recent moves

I reverted some of your moves such as List of international trips made by the President of the United States. This appears to be a misreading of the consensus. The consensus was about an article with a plural of the job title, per MOS:JOBTITLES, as a common noun describing a category of people. This article is in the singular form as a proper formal title. If you disagree with this, please ping me and let me know so that we can resolve this together. Interstellarity (talk) 19:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Interstellarity: I wasn't misreading the consensus, I was simply using it as justification for moving related articles in accordance with MOS:JOBTITLES, specifically the 3rd bullet point @ Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography#Positions, offices, and occupational titles; although the article titles reverted have the singular of the job title, the job titles are preceded by a modifier, the, and so, like articles with a plural of the job title, should be lower case. Drdpw (talk) 21:44, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't agree. I will be requesting a third opinion. Interstellarity (talk) 23:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Response to third opinion request:
Hi. I've never edited this article, nor am a grammarian.

MOS:JOBTITLES appears to me to be on point and clear on this issue, since "the" is clearly a definite article. Consensus at Talk:List of presidents of the United States seemed to be The MOS guidance on job titles, including presidents, has been reaffirmed in several discussions over the last couple years; examples of use have been refined and have gained consensus. So I see no compelling reason to change it for the articles in question.

To me personally, an article titled "List of international trips made by the President of the United States" would mean trips made by the current office holder. The article in question is not.

Now, just to prove I am not a grammarian, why wouldn't the article discussed use the plural? For example call the article "List of international trips made by presidents of the United States", since we are discussing multiple presidents. -- Work permit (talk) 00:53, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Work permit: How about the other articles that I recently moved? Interstellarity (talk) 01:43, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It would be helpful if I had a list, since I can't be sure I caught them all. The lists of people pardoned and list of actors seem to still fit the description that president is preceded by a definite article. Religious affiliations uses the plural "presidents" so per MOS that would not be capitalized either. Have I missed any others?---- Work permit (talk) 01:59, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Work permit: No, the singular "president" doesn't mean current as in D. J. T., but current as in incumbent/sitting – whomever was POTUS at the time. Drdpw (talk) 06:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see. So "List of international trips made by presidents of the United States" would include trips made by GWB after he left office?---- Work permit (talk) 13:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Work permit: Technically yes, which is why the title List of international trips made by the president of the United States should be restored, and why the singular form in: List of people pardoned or granted clemency by the President of the United States, List of actors who played the President of the United States, List of tie-breaking votes cast by the vice president of the United States, List of actors who played the Vice President of the United States should remain. Drdpw (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Interstellarity: Please consider restoring the singular form List of international trips made by the president of the United States, and restoring my earlier move to lower case letters in List of actors who played the President of the United States, List of people pardoned or granted clemency by the President of the United States and List of actors who played the Vice President of the United States. Please also consider removing your move request for the two Actors who played ... pages, as the singular form of the job title is correct as I've noted above. Drdpw (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

There is a RfC on the Reagan article on a subject in which you have previously commented: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ronald_Reagan#RfC:_Reagan_and_Apartheid Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:48, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to meet you

Greetings
~ Thanks for your help on Ronald Reagan. It reads much better ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 00:28, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A message from David Lloyd-Jones

Hi,

I see you asking why I corrected "Justice of the Supreme Court" to "Justice of the Unted States." As I said in the correction itself, because that's implied by the term the Constitution uses for the Chief Justice, "Chief Justice of the United States," not of the Supreme Court. The Chief Justice of the United States is Chair of the Supreme Court, see? The other Justices of the United States are the remaining members of that court...

Cheers,

David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 22:06, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@David Lloyd-Jones: Where was the edit of which you speak of? As far as I can find, the only interaction between us was here on the List of SCOTUS justices talk page where you posted a comment at the top of the page about a section title being incorrect and I asked you to please state your issue by creating a new section at the bottom of the page. If that's the one you're referring to, please start a discussion in a new section at the bottom of the page; we, along with others, can discuss the issue there. Drdpw (talk) 22:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good Dr.,
My comment above states my "issue" in full. Members of the Supreme Court are Justices of the United States.
FWIW, "Associate Justice" is a sloppy invention with no historical or Constitutional claim to existence, and "Justice of the Supreme Court" is just dopey and ignorant. Cases don't arise in the Supreme Court, they arise in the United States. Rulings don't apply to the Supreme Court, they apply to the United States. Etc.
I have very little hope of sanity prevailing on this: American is a degenerate form of the English language and has lost the use of the subjunctive, of subject-verb agreement, and of any but accidental correspondence to objective reality.
Flail on! — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Lloyd-Jones (talk • contribs) 15:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Who would preside in the impeachment trial of the Vice President

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_President_of_the_United_States#Impeachment

You recently deleted my addition to that section, shown below: 

There is a difference of legal opinion as to who would preside if a vice president were on trial in the Senate after impeachment by the House.  The vice president is, under the Constitution, also president of the Senate, but it is a longstanding principle of American law that no person may be the judge of his or her own case.[3] Goldstein, Joel K., "Can the Vice President preside at his own impeachment trial?: A critique of bare textualism," Saint Louis University Law Journal (Vol. 44:849, pp. 849-870)

You commented, "No need to broach this hypothetical." I disagree. It is an open constitutional question, and I believe an interesting one, and could someday become very important. Please put it back in. Thank you. Elendil's Heir (talk) 14:48, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve added a statement about the Constitution's silence on who would preside if an impeached vice president were on trial in the Senate, paraphrased from the Goldberg article, to the "Preside over impeachment trials" subsection of the article's "Roles of the vice president" section as it already made mention of this issue. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 23:17, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting

If you have to revert again, it might be helpful to reference the fact that the current text was established by consensus at Talk:List of presidents of the United States/Archive 7#President-elect final draft. YBG (talk) 18:52, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unwarranted on what basis?

Hey, thanks for your interaction on the Gerald Ford page. I think adding notes like this to all the VP fields that have a 'None' in them is a good idea, but you seem to disagree. Can I ask why? I added such notes to the Andrew Jackson, LBJ and Richard Nixon pages. I'm not 100% sure that I am right about doing it, but it seems useful to the readers to me. Thanks for your time. Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:33, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

per your request, I will move discussion to the LBJ talk page ([4]) Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Set index article reverts

Hi, could you elaborate on the reasoning for your reverts at List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States, List of presidential trips made by Barack Obama, List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft, and List of presidential trips made by Donald Trump? Are you disagreeing with the consensus that seems to have formed at WT:SIA? Or do you think it doesn't apply to these specific articles? It might be even more helpful if you would join the conversation on that talk page. Colin M (talk) 23:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Also, regarding the applicability of that discussion, I should note that 2 of the articles you reverted were among the five examples I gave as examples for editors to consider when I started the thread.) Colin M (talk) 23:42, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And sorry for the spam, but a timely response would be appreciated. I paused my edits after your first couple reverts, since it seems like you may find issue with this general pattern of changes, but I'd kind of like to resume the job soon, if possible, while the context is still fresh in my mind and I still have the JWB session going and relevant tabs open and stuff. Colin M (talk) 00:17, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Colin M: After reading through the discussion, I see how thoughtfully you all have worked through this issue, and find the reasoning for why lists of lists are not set indexes to be sound. →Emerging consensus: Green tickY. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 01:34, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem: Article Two of the United States Constitution

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Article Two of the United States Constitution, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images from either web sites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/2/essays/76/executive-vesting-clause, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

It may also be necessary for the text to be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

See Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a template of the permissions letter the copyright holder is expected to send.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Article Two of the United States Constitution saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing!

I apologize for the obvious form letter above, which is autogenerated by the copyright violation notice template. I literally can't customize it. The edit in question is nearly four years old now, so you're clearly not new here, and you seem to have made a lot of positive Wikipedia contributions. The issue here is that in early 2016, you copied text directly from the Heritage Foundation's website onto the Article Two page without indicating that it was a direct quote. You can ignore the line above about ″working on a new version″ of the article; the vast majority of the article is still intact. Elium2 (talk) 05:38, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tombstone, Arizona, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Apparition (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:42, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the information being removed

Their is good reason why my information concerning Jimmy Carter should be sufficient. One being that a UTI is not trivial but important. If the case is that my paragraph about a UTI that I published is not notable enough, than Jimmy Carter Falling should not be acceptable in that section either. For falling and a UTI is very notable and both if left untreated can lead to death.BigRed606 (talk) 05:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Close at Ronald Reagan

Hi Drdpw, You undid my close at Talk:Ronald_Reagan#Newly_released_audio in favor of including mention of the audio with the edit summary that I misstated consensus. By my count (not including the early "too soon, wait" !votes), there were 5 !votes opposing the inclusion vs. 10 !votes in favor of the inclusion, with a noticeable trend toward inclusion and decent enough arguments on both sides that neither need to be discounted much, so I thought it was a reasonably clear case (and, after being open for several months with no recent participation, time for a closure). Could you explain why you objected? Sdkb (talk) 19:22, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sdkb, my issue concerns your closing the conversation with a judgement that Consensus has emerged to include a mention of Reagan's remarks, which misstates the outcome of the conversation. What emerged was a rough consensus that the remark might be worth mentioning if it were integrated into the narrative text, but not as a separate subsection about the remark. Also, there was no consensus reached on where or how the remark could be integrated into the article. Accurate and sometimes nuanced closing statements are especially important in discussions on the Ronald Reagan talk page. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 20:55, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's helpful. I agree with you that there wasn't a clear consensus on how to integrate the material. Given that the discussion had remained stagnant for three months, I felt the best way to move forward was to close it on the question of whether to include, and to then leave discussion on how to include to the other discussion, which remains open. Would you be okay with me redoing the close with further description, or would it be better to find an admin to assess it? Sdkb (talk) 21:07, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sdkb, closing with more description is fine by me. Much obliged. Drdpw (talk) 21:16, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A message from Sleyece Cease and Desist

You've recently attempted to edit war with me and smashed 3RR like the Kool Aid man through a brick wall. I'm not going to edit any pages you have recently attacked me on any further. If you continue to harass me and chase my edits across the site, you'll be immediately reported. Sleyece (talk) 20:55, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sleyece: I am neither harassing you nor attacking you. You are the one who was blocked a few years ago for edit-warring on the Edith Wilson page, among others. You are the one who, after your indefinite block was reduced, promised not to repeat the behavior – which you did a few weeks ago: Edith Wilson 13:57, December 11, 2019 and Edith Wilson 14:42, January 30, 2020; Dick Cheney 13:47, December 26, 2019; George H. W. Bush 13:55, December 26, 2019. And further, I am not chasing your "edits across the site;" these 3 articles are on my watch list. Regards. Drdpw (talk) 00:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed you would use my past against me. That is no excuse for violating the rules yourself. However, as long as were in agreement, I'll just leave the pages on your watch list alone and edit elsewhere. Thanks. Sleyece (talk)

Presidency of Ronald Reagan

You had blanked a new section on environmental policy. The editor added it (and more) back in. I didn't blank it.....but I started a new section on the talk page discussing its flaws. I think it's got potential, but needs serious work. I'd like you to weigh in if you still feel it isn't worthy of addition at all. Thanks.Rja13ww33 (talk) 14:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC) Rja13ww33 (talk) 14:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance of golf-time statistics.

I just now noticed an addition you made to Talk:Dwight D. Eisenhower on 10:22, 24 March 2019 (now archived, I believe) in which you asked:

What's your point/question? While there was indeed criticism at the time of how much time Eisenhower spent playing golf, his golf-playing time statistics are of no consequence in the broad scheme of his life, and comparing the number of rounds he played with the number of rounds other presidents played is immaterial.

I hadn't suggested that comparisons be made on Wikipedia, just that such statistics would be useful data for those making comparisons. "Just the facts, ma'am." And what better place than Wikipedia? (Rhetorical question only.)

One further thought: Taken in isolation, such stats would indeed be immaterial. But when there is criticism of a President's (any President's) leisure time, having reality-based data is important.

BMJ-pdx (talk) 00:25, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural question for Reagan article

Hi Drdpw! It looks like the discussion about apartheid/AIDS at Ronald Reagan has stagnated, and there isn't yet a consensus. Would an RfC be the best way to move that forward? Do you have any advice about how that RfC should be formatted (i.e. should it list specific alternative phrasings, or just ask whether to include mentions)? Sdkb (talk) 19:35, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of peer-reviewed research

Can you clarify to me why you removed peer-reviewed research, as you did here[5]? It's hard to think of edits, short of vandalism, that are more egregious than when editors removed the best possible sources, and provide zero explanation why. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:29, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A message from Zddoodah

Impeachments and List of Presidents

What authority says that impeachment information is improper or inappropriate? There is no logic behind mentioning Nixon's resignation while facing impeachment but not mentioning actual impeachments. Zddoodah (talk) 23:15, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zddoodah - Your answer may be found on the article's talk page: Talk:List of presidents of the United States#Impeachments. Sorry for not including this link in my edit summary. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 23:32, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Carter

Re your revert of my revert- perhaps I didn't explain it correctly- the text in the lead is fully supported, and referenced, in the body of the article - by which I mean OUR article. Its the section just under Personal life, under religion and is sourced to the New York Times currently ref 413 https://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/21/us/carter-sadly-turns-back-on-national-baptist-body.html. I assume the first editor didn't bother scrolling down that far and just looked at the ref tagged onto the lead. No idea why that's there; its the only one attached to the lead. Curdle (talk) 13:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"No Drama Obama" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect No Drama Obama. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 25#No Drama Obama until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. OcelotCreeper (talk) 20:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A message from Mdewman6

Regarding the edits to Twenty-second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Interaction_with_the_Twelfth_Amendment, I do not follow. Yes, there may have been speculation about Obama as VP in 2008, but it had no relation to the the 22nd ammendment because he had not yet served as president. How does that fit here? Mdewman6 (talk) 20:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A message from scooteristi

Re: your undo of Alta California on List of U.S. states by date of admission to the Union please see discussion on talk thread for that page.scooteristi (talk) 21:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

scooteristi - I've given your talk page message some thought and modified the California row in the table and have left a reply on the article's talk page. Drdpw (talk) 02:46, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good job

I really like the new improvements you made at the Ancestral background of presidents of the United States page. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 17:49, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to RedWarn

Hello, Drdpw! I noticed you have been using Twinkle and was wondering if you'd like to beta test my new tool, RedWarn, specifically designed to improve your editing experience.

  • Easy to use - Unlike other tools, RedWarn uses easy to interpret icons and simple summaries for common actions, reducing both learning and reading times.
  • Supports rollback and rollback-like functionality - Unlike Twinkle, RedWarn supports both rollback and rollback-like functionality for users will rollback permissions. This decreases waiting times during rollbacks.
  • Making life easier on the battlefield - Ever been in the middle of a vandalism war or campaign, frantically reloading the history page to see a new edit? No more! Enabling RedWarn's "Alert on Change" feature will automatically send you to the latest edit when a new edit occurs - and if you're working on something else, RedWarn will send you a notification while the tab is still open in the background. No time wasted.
  • Rollback previews - If you're ever worried about the changes a rollback will make, especially in the case of reverting good faith edits, you can click the rollback preview button to preview the difference a rollback will make, with the version that will be restored on the right, and the latest revision on the left.
  • Always the latest revision - RedWarn will automatically redirect you to the latest revision if the rollback is no longer for the latest revision - no more frustrating errors.
  • Fast - RedWarn can automatically select a warning level, and, on vandalism and content removal rollbacks, automatically select a warning template.
  • Built on your feedback - RedWarn is receiving frequent feature additions and changes based on your feedback. If there's something you don't like, or would like to see, just say!
  • and many more features ...but I don't want to fill your userpage.

RedWarn is currently in use by over 35 other Wikipedians, and feedback so far has been extremely positive. If you're interested, please see see the RedWarn tool page for more information on RedWarn's features which I haven't listed here. Otherwise, feel free to remove this message from your page. If you have any further questions, please ping me or leave a message on my talk page. Your feedback is much appreciated! Ed6767 talk! 00:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cristobal 20

Sorry if I come off as overly aggressive here, but as someone who has been editing for 12 years, I was a little irked to see my edit reverted. Let me know if you have any questions/concerns regarding the article itself and/or what I put in my edit summary. YE Pacific Hurricane 18:04, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Boy?

This seemed to be the link for your talk page, per Tropical Storm Cristobal (2020) -- although the same would apply for you, I think. If I am on the wrong page, please disregard. I am looking for both Hurricaneboy23 and Drdpw, both of whom have deleted a section without posting to the relevant section of the talk page. First, not all the reverts are mine. Check the history. Second, re consensus -- I have been posting about this to the Talk Page. You have not. - Tenebris 66.11.165.101 (talk) 21:30, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

39,40th states.

I am not wrong. North and South Dakota Statehood papers were singed almost simultaneously by President Harrison, who hid the order in which he signed them, so it impossible to know which is 39 and which 40. Which is what he wanted. I included a reference to support that fact. It is misleading to your readers to indicate otherwise. If you are assigning those numbers alphabetically, then you should say so. Wis2fan (talk) 03:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changes on Talk:List of presidents of the United States who owned slaves

Hi! When you added a comment to Talk:List of presidents of the United States who owned slaves, you also changed the formatting of comments by others and merged a section into another. WP:TPO says: The basic rule, with exceptions outlined below, is to not edit or delete others' posts without their permission. In this case, your changes also made it very hard to see the comment you added among all the other differences. I manually reverted most of your changes. It's no big deal, but please don't edit comments by others in the future. (I think it's also better to not make unrelated changes in one edit. In this case, it would have been better to add your comment in one edit and make the other changes in a separate step. This makes sure the diffs don't become too large and incomprehensible.) Chrisahn (talk) 10:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A message from User:Aricmfergie

Sorry I was unaware of the previous article, thank you! :) Aricmfergie (talk) 03:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect-quality and List-class

Per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Archive 40#Redirect-quality and List-class, WikiProject Tropical cyclones does not use redirect-class, so please undo and stop assessing tropical cyclone articles as redirect class. Thanks, 🐔 Chicdat ChickenDatabase 12:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chicdat, I appreciate the information and Mea culpa! But why ask me to undo my edits just to turn around and revert them w/o giving me time to make things right? Drdpw (talk) 13:03, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, sometimes I revert without thinking. 🐔 Chicdat ChickenDatabase 14:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of State Governments

Hey,

I left you a message on https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Comparison_of_U.S._state_governments# to discuss an edit you reverted. Please get back to me so we don't get into an edit war, especially over such a trivial article.

Esb5415 (talk) 16:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

United States Electoral College

Hi. I am surprised by your edit on the article United States Electoral College that you have never heard of Direct Democracy before. Please explain. I have added my proposed change on the Talk Page of the article so you may comment there, as you noted previously that you were interested in doing. Stevenmitchell (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edith Wilson

Hi, regarding your revert, could you point me to where exactly it's in the article that people consider her to be the first woman president? I thought I had checked for that but didn't find it.

For reference, I was coming from List of female United States presidential and vice-presidential candidates#See also in which it says she's called that, but then the linked article doesn't mention it. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 16:46, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Justices' length of service

I think there should be length of service broken down by years and days on List of United States Supreme Court justices by time in office because it is easier for readers to get their heads around 25 years, 19 days versus 9,150 days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:484:C580:3F40:F8F6:A105:3445:95DD (talk) 09:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorting Justices by birthdate

Hello, I believe that sorting Justices on the Supreme Court of the United States by birthdate may be useful for many users that want to see wich Justice is older/younger and, consequently, more likely to retire. Also, right now I can't see any pattern when sorting on the first column. Thus, I think that any change to a pattern is better than keeping it random. I may be missing some pattern but I don't think that's the case. I hope we can get the edit I did back up, to provide a better sorting toll on the mentioned article. Regards, Wikarus (talk) 14:49, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikarus: The column sorts by name, specifically the last name of the justices, which important. Two of the table's columns already provide age related information and sort by age, it does not need a third. Drdpw (talk) 15:46, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification and sorry for the misundestanding.Wikarus (talk) 17:19, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Justices' images

Thank you for acknowledging my good faith, but why did you revert my edit instead of 2600's latest edits? 68.101.113.185 (talk) 17:53, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Thanks for reverting that vandal's edits on the season article and Gamma. Next time, if it is a clear vandal, it's not "good faith". Thanks! ~ Destroyeraa🌀 23:14, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help!

I need some help! I had added my userboxes to my user page and now am trying to convert them into a single userbox just like how you have it! But without having to remove and replace all my userboxes(theirs a lot!) any tips?! B. M. L. Peters (talk) 02:34, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tlk.

You're not understanding what is going on. If you looked you would see that C. Eric is incorrectly editing. You are also not supposed to edit on a talk page. If you want to be involved in a discussion, sure, I guess that is alright. You are not correct in what you have said. Howdoesitgo1 (talk) 04:20, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drdpw&oldid=986986607"