User talk:Drdpw

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Farewell address vs farewell speech[edit]

Hi Drdpw, I reverted your edit on Farewell address because I can't see how it and Farewell speech should have any different content. Maybe you could create List of farewell speeches instead? --Slashme (talk) 07:39, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Slashme, as "Farewell address" is a valid search term and works well as either a Disambiguation or Set index article, and "Farewell Speech" works less well as an article title due to its vagueness, I would like to restore the "address" page as a SIA, and make the "speech" page a List of as you suggest. How does that sound to you?

Your barnstar[edit]

I was just admiring the great barnstar you created at Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Presidents and want to thank you for your interest in an area we are both strongly devoted to. You have given me something to work toward! Hoppyh (talk) 23:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Challenging your close of a move request[edit]

Dear Drdpw, could you please detail your rationale for closing the move discussion at Talk:List of Presidents of the United States#Requested move 20 May 2018 as "no consensus"? I do not think it is an accurate reading of the discussion. Thanks, — JFG talk 21:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

On the contrary, it appears that Drdpw's close accurately reflects the obvious lack of consensus in that RM discussion. Furthermore, Drdpw is an experienced, uninvolved editor who is familiar with the article, whereas you are an involved user, who didn't get the result they !voted for. Perhaps you should provide a detailed rationale as to why you feel Drdpw got this wrong. wolf 21:37, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
I closed it because a consensus to move the page had not emerged from the ten-day-long discussion on the talk page, and because a parallel discussion at Talk:List of Vice Presidents of the United States#Requested move 21 May 2018 had earlier been closed following an extensive discussion, during which a consensus to move several POTUS & VPOTUS pages did not emerge. Drdpw (talk) 01:13, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
@Drdpw: Thanks; will ponder whether to bring this to move review. @Thewolfchild: As Drdpw is one of the top contributors to the discussed article, that makes him involved too; I believe he should have left the closing to somebody else. — JFG talk 03:45, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Contributing to an article does not necessarily make an editor "involved" at least not in the sense that they should be prohibited from closing an RM there. Can you show, with diffs, that any of his contributions to the article, and this topic, were of such a clear and specific POV that his close should not be considered impartial? Otherwise, you are basically accusing an editor in good standing of bias and abusing the close process to push a POV. Unfounded accusations are a violation of WP:AGF and WP:NPA. If you are considering "bringing this to review", you will needs the diffs I mentioned to support your complaint. So why not post your specific concerns here, with support, and see if this can be resolved now, or if pursuing further is necessary? wolf 05:29, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Let me state very clearly that I am in no way accusing Drdpw of bad faith or of "abusing the close process". We have often interacted in the past, always amicably irrespective of our agreements or disagreements on content. Today, I happen to disagree with their rationale for closing, and I may or may not raise my concerns at move review, which should not be construed as questioning Drdpw's integrity. — JFG talk 06:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
I count 11 supporters and six opposers in the RM. It looks to me like the RM at List of Vice Presidents of the United States weighed much too heavily in the result. This isn't common law and we aren't bound by precedent, especially a clearly mistaken one. A closer should try to make the result consistent with the relevant guideline, in this case WP:JOBTITLE. If we wanted to take precedents seriously, we'd have to be able to look up all the relevant precedents. AFAIK, there is no way to do that. What's more, such precedents almost certainly go both ways. Nine Zulu queens (talk) 06:13, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
I put this issue on move review: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2018_June. Nine Zulu queens (talk) 03:21, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
That this was the correct close is reflected in the n-gram results, which show that the upper-casing has been the consistent form since 1823. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:53, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
All that shows is that if "president" is at the beginning of a sentence, it is of course capitalized. See this ngram. American publications sometimes capitalize "president" to show respect for the president of the U.S. But that's certainly not very internationally minded of them. Nine Zulu queens (talk) 13:21, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Your n-gram still shows upper-case is now most used and has gained as the preferred usage. I see that you started at 1990, and here is the overall trend since 1800 using your perimeter. As the most familiar usage the upper-cased use on Wikipedia is justified for, and expected by, its readers. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:36, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

my question was removed[edit]

My question was removed without explanation. The question was not off-topic. I just wanted to know about the naming style. Angela Maureen (talk) 16:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Possible Wikipedia-integrated publication[edit]

Dear Drdpw and Orser67,

I came across the Wikipedia article that you helped to write on the Presidency of George Washington.

Would you be interested in putting it (or any other article) though external, academic peer review for publication in the WikiJournal of Humanities? It's an academic journal in the same format as the medical journal www.WikiJMed.org.

It couples the rigour of academic peer review with the extreme reach of the encyclopedia. It is therefore an excellent way to achieve public engagement, outreach and impact public understanding of science. Peer-reviewed articles are dual-published both as standard academic PDFs, as well as directly into Wikipedia. This improves the scientific accuracy of the encyclopedia, and rewards academics with citable, indexed publications. It also provides much greater reach than is normally achieved through traditional scholarly publishing.

Anyway, let me know whether you'd be interested in putting an article through academic peer review (either solo, or with a team of coauthors). Alternatively, if you would prefer to write on a different topic, we may be able to accommodate you.

Further information at v:WikiJournal_of_Humanities/Publishing. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 12:01, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 25[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited United States presidential line of succession, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thomas Marshall (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Chief Justice of the United States[edit]

Fair enough (I suspected someone might revert); but then shouldn't the "who will soon retire" clause on the Kennedy sentence also go? Magidin (talk) 04:36, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Not necessarily, as he has announced his intention to retire. Drdpw (talk) 04:58, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Then it should be phrased that way, rather than predictively; "who has announced his plan to retire at the end of July 2018", or some such. If we are not going to be prospective, then we shouldn't be prospective. Magidin (talk) 05:31, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
That's sounds like a good way to put it. Drdpw (talk) 06:43, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Morning Star[edit]

Could you explain the advantages of this horizontal TOC? I see an identical amount of white space, but now the TOC is extremely hard to read. -- Fyrael (talk) 16:53, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I've undone the change, as the "clear" template I added earlier eliminates the white space and works with "TOC right", which I agree is preferable to the horizontal TOC. Drdpw (talk) 17:08, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a second look. -- Fyrael (talk) 02:37, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Why?[edit]

why doesn't a link to List of C.S. states by date of admission to the Confederacy belong on the List of U.S. states by date of admission to the Union? It is a part of US history. Newyearbaby (talk) 15:03, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 7[edit]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

List of SC justices by seat[edit]

I'm perplexed as to why it was necessary to revise the change I made, as it was factually true, and in fact the actual reason for their precedence. The edit you made does not reflect the actual events as they occurred. The statute which I referenced (28 U.S.C. § 4) has substantively been a federal statute since the Judiciary Act of 1789 (cf. 1 Stat. 73, section 1). Thus, the order in which the Senate voted for them or documented them in their journal is irrelevant to their precedence. Congress passed JA1789 and Washington signed it into law on Thu., Sep. 24, 1789. Washington submitted nominees to the Senate the next day. The Senate confirmed all six nominees on Sat., Sep. 26, 1789. The same day, Washington commissioned both Jay as CJ and Rutledge as AJ; their respective office ranks left no question as to their precedence. Washington then commissioned the remainder of the associate justices one per day over the next four days: Cushing on Sep. 27; Harrison on Sep. 28 (he declined office); Wilson on Sep. 29; and Blair on Sep. 30. By statute, the order in which they appear in the Senate record has zero bearing on their precedence or ordering, per the very law the Senate had just passed. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 02:36, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

After mulling it over I see what you're saying, and have edited the paragraph. Thanks. Drdpw (talk) 04:26, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
ty -- Foofighter20x (talk) 20:20, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Sandra Day O'Connor "standard" photo: a bug[edit]

There appears to be a bug in the file information for File:Sandra Day O'Connor.jpg on Commons, such that in thumbnail contexts on Wikipedia (such as lists of justices/courts/decisions etc), O'Connor appears to be squished, and we musn't have that. I believe that the root cause is somehow tied to recent edits of the file itself, esp. the changing back-and-forth from the "landscape" file which the other person uploaded, back to your portrait reversions. I fail to find an obvious fix in the file information at the moment (attempted one), and so I ask a fellow human to have a look. Here, I see the problem consistently in both Firefox and IE on a Windows machine. Perhaps also the problem is something to do with the travel from Commons to Wikipedia. or else something with Media Viewer.MinnesotanUser (talk) 06:26, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

The Editor's Barnstar[edit]

Editors Barnstar Hires.png 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)

President Trump and the Twenty-fifth Amendment[edit]

I would like you to opine here regarding whether this material is appropriate for the 25A article. I think your contribution to that discussion would greatly improve it. SMP0328. (talk) 04:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Vice President of the United States - Election section[edit]

The leading with "vice president" only and the correction of the "select the individual electors" are what I feel most strongly about. I'm not married to my wording in this section and I welcome your edits. I think the weakest part of this paragraph right now is the sentence starting with "in both states". 107.77.221.11 (talk) 04:14, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

A message from Tripodics[edit]

If extrapolation of the result (of the actual text) is considered "extraneous" then so is the misleading number(6,489) which extrapolates the result of wording that was not approved (i.e. leaving the word "less" uncorrected).

My reason for adding the correct extrapolation was party to counteract the misleading effect of including an extrapolation based on wording that was changed before approval. If the First Article of the Bill of Rights had been ratified (or if Connecticut is found to have ratified), then the size of the House would NOT necessarily be 6000+. It is definitely wrong to leave the false impression that ratification would force a result that follows only from failure to correct the wording before passage.

I would prefer that both numbers remain; however, if the correct extrapolation (based on the actual wording and legislative history) is removed by your reversion, then the previous sentence (based on a hypothetical) should also be removed!


Latest revision as of 2018-08-24T10:41:43 (edit) (undo) (thank) Drdpw (talk | contribs) (Reverted good faith edits by Tripodics (talk): Extraneous detail. (TW))

Tripodics (talk) 15:36, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

P.S. I am unsure of the proper protocol for communicating my objections, so if adding this to your talk pag is inappropriate then please accept my apology and advise me as to the proper method to do so.

Tripodics (talk) 15:36, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

US Prez & Vice Prez intros[edit]

So, you're the fellow who changed the links from List of Presidents of the United States to President of the United States, in the intros of some of the US Presidents. Anyways, I had to complete your task on those bio articles (as well as the US Vice Presidents). PS: The initial reasoning behind the linkage to the List articles, was do to the linkage in the infoboxes being the same :) GoodDay (talk) 15:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Reason for Revert?[edit]

Not understanding reasoning for reversion of the edit to match the names on the list with the form of the names on the list the White House website maintains. Please explain how it is better to have a nickname on the list than to have the name under which the cabinet member serves. Justus R (talk) 04:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

You reverted my edit with the comment "(Undid revision 856349716 by Tripodics (talk) Article the First irrelevant here and neither mentioned nor taken into consideration in this article.)" However, my two minor changes merely clarified (and disambiguated) the wording and had nothing whatever to do with that Article. If you are correct that "Article the First irrelevant [is] here" then the number 60,000 should be removed, because since it comes from that Article Regardless, this particular edit had nothing to do with any of that! Tripodics (talk) 17:22, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Does the Prez nominate or appoint.[edit]

Howdy. A discussion at the WikiProject page concerning the US Supreme Court (about 2 or 3 years ago) resulted in adopting the usage of Nominated, instead of Appointed. If you think that should be changed? then I recommend open up the issue again, there :) GoodDay (talk) 14:05, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, the Nominator/Appointer field should be deleted entirely. GoodDay (talk) 14:34, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Opinion needed[edit]

Hello. Would you be interested to say your opinion about the issue raised here — Talk:List of heads of state of Angola#Requested move 2 November 2018? Thanks in advance. --Sundostund (talk) 01:48, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

international trips by president[edit]

i don't know why you keep reverting no one else has said anything and you still have no good reason to keep it there it doesn't belong there a president-elect is not the POTUS עם ישראל חי (talk) 22:48, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

עם ישראל חי, because you again made the unilateral decision to remove information about presidents-elect travel from the article; because you mistakenly believe that your rejection of my points about why keeping the material in the article is appropriate, invalidates those points; and, because it appears that you are not yet ready to compromise on this issue. Drdpw (talk) 00:06, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Drdpw I'm not sure what your problem is what is there to compromise this list is any and all international trips by the POTUS not by anyone else so the question is a president-elect the POTUS? עם ישראל חי (talk) 15:48, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Drdpw. 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)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Drdpw. 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)

VOTUS categories[edit]

Have you looked at Category:Vice Presidency of the United_States? Currently the structure looks like this:

(C) Category:Vice Presidency of the United_States
(C) Category:United States vice-presidential candidates
(P) Democratic Party vice presidential candidate selection, 1948 ... 2016
(P) Republican Party vice presidential candidate selection, 1948 ... 2016

I think it would be better like this:

(C) Category:Vice Presidency of the United_States
(C) Category:United States vice-presidential candidates
(C) Category:United States vice-presidential candidate selection
(P) Democratic Party vice presidential candidate selection, 1948 ... 2016
(P) Republican Party vice presidential candidate selection, 1948 ... 2016

What do you think? YBG (talk) 15:45, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

YBG, I'm not sure that an additional subcategory layer will enhance/ease navigation; why would it be better if reconfigured? Drdpw (talk) 21:10, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not very active in working with categories, that's why I asked. A large collection of closely related pages which are not categorized together just seemed weird to me. What about this change which doesn't involve creating a new subcategory, just moving the pages to a more specific category?

(C) Category:Vice Presidency of the United_States
(C) Category:United States vice-presidential candidates
(P) Democratic Party vice presidential candidate selection, 1948 ... 2016
(P) Republican Party vice presidential candidate selection, 1948 ... 2016

No big deal one way or the other. I'm just asking the question; having no firm opinion of my own, I gladly go along with whatever change (or no-change) you think best. YBG (talk) 21:21, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Living POTUS / VOTUS[edit]

If I recall correctly, it was you that implemented a simplified table after the previous templates were TfD'd. I have been working on a couple of new alternatives that would not require single-use templates. I am very nearly ready bring a couple of alternatives up for broader discussion. As it was simplest, the format will match the old template versions rather than the simplified structure that you implemented. I have a couple of questions for you

  1. About the differences in appearance between the old template-based version and the new simplified version, were all of these changes made just because it was simpler to implement, or are some of the differences an explicit choice to an appearance that you prefer?
  2. Would it be helpful if tried to implement some of these changes before requesting broader comments? Or should I just seek to re-implement the appearance of the old template-based version?

My goal is to try to make it as easy as possible for people to visualize alternatives and give feedback. YBG (talk) 01:29, 22 November 2018 (UTC)