User talk:Drdpw

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Hello, Drdpw! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Button sig.png or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! —EncMstr (talk) 02:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines

The community

Writing articles
Miscellaneous


Contents

TUSC token a4fceaf0933829e9c90c1f1e20708f17[edit]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Fraternity/Sorority Userboxes.[edit]

Looks like Fraternity and Sorority Userboxes are something that you are putting a lot of work into. Let me know if there is something specific I can do to help (maybe in categorization?). Also note that there is a separate category for the Honoraries, at Category:Honor Society user templates in addition to Category:Sorority_and_fraternity_user_templates. Also, the link for Triangle should be to Triangle Fraternity.Naraht (talk) 14:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Decided to go ahead and add usage to everything in both categories, starting with the Sorority/Fraternity category from A.Naraht (talk) 14:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Done.Naraht (talk) 19:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Userbox category[edit]

I reverted your addition of the Category:Wikipedian clergy to a userbox for a yeshiva student. Students are not (yet) clergy. Especially in the case of a yeshiva, which does not as a rule give rabbinic ordination, and even when it does, only to a small part of its students. Debresser (talk)

Category[edit]

Hello, Drdpw. I saw that you recently created the Category:Userboxes/Education/Collegiate sororities and fraternities and then, a few hours later, redirected it to a page you created in the Wikipedia namespace. Was this just a case of accidentally creating the page with the wrong prefix? If so, you might want to add {{db-author}} to the top of the category page, since there are no pages in the category and we normally don't allow redirects in the Category: namespace at all. Thanks. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 12:14, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I have now done just that.Drdpw (talk) 19:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:User Sigma Thêta Pi[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:User Sigma Thêta Pi has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. GrapedApe (talk) 14:48, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Upper Peninsula roads[edit]

Too many notes The problem, Herr Drdpw is that the Upper Peninsula has too many roads. 7&6=thirteen () 21:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

An Award for You[edit]

Flag map of Michigan.svg Promotion of the place where people describe where they live by pointing to a spot on their hands award
For all your great work promoting articles about our state. 7&6=thirteen () 19:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
P.S., it is possible to reasonably portray both Upper Peninsula and Lower Peninsula using both hands. 7&6=thirteen () 20:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Joseph Zettelmaier[edit]

Can you prove that Joseph Zettelmaier is notable? I mean, when I looked for notability proving sources, I didn't find much of anything. I see where he was nominated for some awards, but not really where he won anything. There's local coverage, but not much more than that. I just think that he's going to be a red link forever, as I don't think he'd ever pass notability guidelines. WP:REDLINK does say that using red links can help WP grow, but that you should try to only include red links that can show some notability and that you should eventually write the article for the writer. If you can show sources to show that this guy is actually notable enough to where someone will eventually create an article then he should be added, but I really don't see where he'd pass notability guidelines. Other than local coverage and notifications of events, there's really nothing out there to show he's notable enough to merit an entry or a mention. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

  • I've asked for a third opinion on this, as it's clear we're not going to agree. I don't think that we shouldn't have any red links ever, but the list on that page is prone to a lot of people adding a lot of nn people and I want some assertion as to why he'd pass GNG enough to merit an article. I need something beyond you saying he's notable and a link to a WP policy. Some proof is required to show that some day someone could create an article for him that would pass GNG, assuming that you don't want to. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Talkback: third opinion on red link regarding Michigan playwrigth[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Drdpw. You have new messages at Talk:List of Michigan writers.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ahnoneemoos (talk) 19:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

3RR...[edit]

Drpdw, you're a regular, so I won't insult you with a template, but you're over the WP:3RR at Children of Henry VIII... Hchc2009 (talk) 18:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 30[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Annapolis Convention (1786), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

May 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Titles of Nobility Amendment may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • #[[Georgia (U.S. state)|Georgia]] (December 31, 1811

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

June 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of Presidents of the United States by date of birth may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • *President [[Warren G. Harding]] (born November 2, 1865} was {{Age in years and days|1860|08|15|1865|11|02}} younger than First Lady [

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:26, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Jimmy Madison[edit]

Hi, and please, if you can see anything missed on the template, please add to it. I'll talk about the Federalist Papers at some point, it seemed a good link and much easier to navigate for people looking it up than thinking of scrolling down the page, which not everyone will do. Thanks. Randy Kryn 22:55 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I found a category listing James Madison's contributions to the Federalist Papers, and added that to the template. Thank you for inspiring a better link. Randy Kryn 12:53 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Drdpw. You have new messages at Vanjagenije's talk page.
Message added 19:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Vanjagenije (talk) 19:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Drdpw. You have new messages at Vanjagenije's talk page.
Message added 20:57, 14 July 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Vanjagenije (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014[edit]

Information icon Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at Template talk:US Constitutional Tax Law, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Button sig.png) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. TJRC (talk) 16:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Article One of the United States Bill of Rights may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • {{quote|After the first enumeration required by the first article]of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:32, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Declaration of Independence (Trumbull) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Lynch, Jr.; the farthest two figures on the right–Thomas McKean and Philip Livingston); and one of three figures seated in the left rear–George Walton. Additionally, two

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

At U.S. Constitution[edit]

Over the last couple weeks, you are doing yeoman work in rewriting the United States Constitution article. But no consensus is established for reorganization.

It seems to me the article is losing its topical organization of the text, resulting in a mere listing. The table of contents is becoming a wall of enumeration without conveying any sensible information for the general reader. Each section heading contains only one paragraph.

I like much of your actual text writing, summarizing the description of amendments in one voice without the back and forth of previous wiki-edits. But I would appreciate any explanation or justification so I can understand why your revision is better than the previous framework.

I am happy to concur with the new outcome if I am missing something, I was just wondering what I am missing in editorial insight. Thanks in advance. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

@TheVirginiaHistorian: The (unquestionably major) editing I’ve done has been motivated by my desire to improve this article; it should be a good or even featured article, which , at the present time, it is not. When I first started with this, there were several sentences repeated word for word twice or three times. Looking specifically at the Amendments section, I’m struck by how random the sub-section & sub-sub-section divisions seem, and how uneven, and at times scattered, the treatment of each amendment is, and by how few citations there are. I’m also struck by how little is said about Amendments 11-27, labeled as “subsequent” amendments (leaving me, as a reader, w/the impression that subsequent means later appendages not worth a great amount of attention –which I know is not the case, it’s just how it feels).
Thanks for your input and kind words about the content of what I’ve written. Please know that, while I am of the opinion that several parts of the article appear (to me) to be tarnished by over-handling, I’m not attempting to cleanse it of the back and forth of previous wiki-edits; just polish it up a bit. That aid, I do see and concur with what you said above about the impact my editorial re-organization has had on the user-friendliness, if you will, of the article. Therefore here’s what I propose (and I’ll also post this idea on the Constitution Talk Page), I’ll trim the amendment descriptions a bit and organize them topically
“Safeguards of liberty” – amendments 1, 2, 3 & 4
“Legal protections” – amendments 5, 6, 7 & 8
“Unenumerated rights and reserved powers” – amendments 9 & 10
“Expansion of citizen rights” – amendments 13, 14, 15, 19, 23, 24 & 26
“Restriction of citizen rights” – amendments 11 & 18
“Governmental authority” – amendments 16 & 21
“Government processes and procedures” – amendments 12, 17, 20, 22, 25 & 27. Drdpw (talk) 14:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I may have some alternatives for categories, but we are agreed as to the need for a topical organization. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 27[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited United States Constitution, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bootlegging. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Typo in diagram at Article Five of the US Constitution[edit]

Hi there Drdpw. I loved the diagram you produced to explain the amendment process of the US Constitution (at Article Five of the United States Constitution). A (very) minor quibble - there is a repeated "t" in "twentty". Are you able to amend the image and re-upload? Many thanks. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 22:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

November 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Saginaw County, Michigan may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • ] meaning "place of the outlet" &ndash;''sag'' ({{lang-en|link=no|an opening}}) and ''ong'' ({{lang-en|link=no|place of}}."<ref>[http://www.michigan.gov/hal/0,1607,7-160-15481_20826_20829-
  • River]] to form the [[Saginaw River]]. The Refuge is entirely within Saginaw County.<ref>[*[http://midwest.fws.gov/shiawassee/ Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge Official site]</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Tay[edit]

I see that you reverted my edit to the See also section of Tay. When intentionally linking to a disambiguation page (Taymouth), the link should be piped through the (disambigaution) redirect per WP:INTDABLINK. This allows those of us who fix links (and the bots that help us) to know that the link is intentional. -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 06:48, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Help, please[edit]

Hi, Drdpw! I'm trying to use this timeline in the Portuguese Wikipedia using it for the Portuguese Presidents. However, there are five Portuguese Presidents who were in office less than a year. When I try to put that information in the table, the time in office doesn't show. What should I do to fix this? Thank you in advance. Joaopais 03:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Redistricting article - External links[edit]

Hi. I added the Redistricting Game to the External links on the Redistricting article because it is a serious educational tool about this topic. The game is used in colleges and high schools around the US year after year. It has been played 10s of millions of times. Also it is on par in terms of seriousness of purpose with the other external links. Please check out the project. If you still feel it should not appear in the External links I would appreciate an explanation as to why. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgz 1 (talkcontribs) 06:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Column width reversion at United States Constitution[edit]

Hello. I see that you reverted my edit adjusting the column parameters in the United States Constitution article here. You didn't explain why you changed them back, so I figured I'd elaborate on why I made the adjustment in the first place. In my Android browser, too wide a columnation parameter causes the output to overflow the article's right margin and causes misformatting of the entire article due to automatic width adjustment. It winds up looking like this:

A picture's worth a thousand words.

I'm not a fan of edit wars, so I wanted to know if there was some other problem that my adjustment had caused in your own browser, thisthus necessitating your reversion. Thanks, and have a good weekend! Ashanda (talk) 18:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

@Ashanda: Regarding my reverting your edit in the United States Constitution article ...
You are correct, while I gave a summary of what I did, I didn't explain why I did it. First, I'm sorry that your Android browser causes the output to overflow the article's right margin and causes misformatting of the entire article. However, the fact that this happens on your personal device does not justify changing the layout of the section. If this were a widespread problem, I'd feel different, but it's apparently not. There is no problem w/formatting or overflow on my smart phone or on my tablet, and no one else has mentioned that there's a problem on theirs. Does your device have this problem with other pages? Perhaps you could open a discussion of this on the article's talk page or elsewhere in order to gage how wide spread this problem might be amongst android users. Like yourself, I'm not a fan of edit wars and don't want one over this issue either, which is why I'm now suggesting that you open a discussion of this issue. I hope this explanation helps. Drdpw (talk) 22:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
As alluded to in MOS:ACCESS, WP:SIZE, and elsewhere, there is a general consensus to keep the encyclopedia easily readable to users with limited or differing resources. I've been correcting page width issues for years and you're the first person I've had revert me. Since you still haven't explained why you found my adjustment objectionable, I can only assume that you find the line breaks at 20em aesthetically unpleasing compared to those at 30em. The compromise solution, if this is in fact your objection, is actually quite simple -- by using the small=yes parameter of {{div col}}, we can preserve both the 30em columnation as well as the correct formatting of the page width. I've already got a corrected version on my clipboard, shall I paste it in? Ashanda (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello again. It's been a week since I made the above proposal, I've taken your lack of objection as assent, and gone ahead and implemented the change. If you are still dissatisfied with the result, please discuss it with me rather than simply reverting my edit. Thank you, and have a great weekend. Ashanda (talk) 15:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 14[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sigma Tau Gamma, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Episcopal. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

British Prince[edit]

Hello, I was looking you were reverting my changes in the British Prince section, you said "When a British prince is married, his wife, if not already a princess in her own right, gains the privilege of sharing in his princely title and the dignity of being known as a British princess in his name. For example, the wife of Prince Michael of Kent is known as Princess Michael of Kent." Thats no true!!! anyone including (british princess on her own right) or any women who marry a British prince adquire the title and dignity of British princess in his name. An example is Princess Alexandra, Duchess of Fife, Who was princess in her own right, when she married his cousin Prince Arthur of Connaught she was know as Princess Arthur of Connaght. It doenst matter if is a princess of the blood royal or any women always adquire the title of british princess in his name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex0832003 (talkcontribs) 16:41, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Any interest in contributing to a wiki on Representation?[edit]

I am creating a wiki to cover only the topic of Representation. I see that you have made several major edits to the Apportionment Amendment and I thought this might interest you. If you are interested, you can email me through the Email user tool (If you do such, please leave a You've got mail message on my talk page.) Thank you. I Use Dial (talk) 19:27, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

October 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Tax per head may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • A '''head tax''' {also known as a '''poll tax''', '''capitation''', or '''community charge''') is a [[tax]] of a uniform, fixed amount applied to an individual in accordance with the census (as

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 1 November[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact[edit]

You've been making a lot of unilateral changes to this article; some of them positive, some of them not necessarily so. Your new section on the changes from 1796 to 1803 does not seem directly relevant to the topic of abolishing the electoral college, but I've left it for now. But it does not make the original paragraph redundant. The paragraph that was there provides an introduction to the section as a whole; that it is about the full history of attempts to abolish the EC. The text you added does not comprise the full history of the topic, and so "systemic complications" is an overly-broad description of what you've added. I am repeating my change. If you wish to discuss it further, please start a conversation on the article's talk page to solicit input from more editors. Swpbtalk 16:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Timeline of drafting and ratification of the United States Constitution FLC[edit]

Hi, Drdpw. Unfortunately, it looks like the FLC was archived by one of the delegates before I saw the message you sent. You can start another FLC whenever you like, as FLC does not have a version of the FAC rule requiring two weeks before a re-nom. However, if you don't mind I'd like a chance to offer a talk page review before you nominate it again. I like history articles, and we don't see much from this category at FLC. In fact, I think that may be why you didn't get enough reviews; there isn't a large base of reviewers in your field. Luckily, you can do something to broaden your pool of potential reviewers. This time of year is traditionally slow for us, and there are nominations in categories such as numismatics, hurricanes, and music that are also languishing at the moment. If you have any spare time in your editing, consider reviewing one or more of the lists currently needing review; often, these editors will remember what you did and keep you in mind when they go to review an article. In the meantime, keep an eye on the timeline's talk page over the next few days for my pre-FLC review. And please don't give up: many lists pass FLC on their second attempt, and there's no reason that this one shouldn't have every chance of being successful next time. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

January 2016[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Article Four of the United States Constitution may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Heritage Foundation}}</ref> It would later be applied with regard to the formation of [[Maine]] (from [[Massachusetts]] and [[West Virginia]] (from Virginia).<ref>[[Michael P. Riccards]], "Lincoln

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited United States presidential visits to Australia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Darwin. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

frey[edit]

here. Mlpearc (open channel) 20:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

James K Polk[edit]

Why is it "unnecessary" for readers to know how he pronounced his name? It is frequently pronounced incorrectly. Intelligent Mr Toad 2 (talk) 06:37, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 23[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited United States presidential visits to Japan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Shimoda. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

List of international trips made by the President of the United States[edit]

Why did you undo two hours of work on this page without even a comment? It was much clearer with another column.Pacomartin (talk) 00:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Pacomartin, I did include an edit summary when I undid your edit and did so again just now when I undid your revert of my edit. I have copied your above question to the article's talk page and suggest that we take any future discussion on the subject there. cheers. Drdpw (talk) 01:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mainland may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • , as opposed to the approximately 2,670 named [[List of islands of Alaska|offshore islands]] (many of which are part of the [[Alexander Archipelago]] or [[Aleutian Islands]] chain.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

George W. Bush's international presidential trips[edit]

Hi, nice work on the List of international presidential trips made by George W. Bush page! For the introduction, I incorporated some elements from the introduction of Barack Obama's list onto Bush's list, particularly the addition of the number of visits he made per country, as well as the caption of the map. In the next couple of days, I plan to refine the details of each visit. First and foremost, I will add more details, similar to how it is presented in Obama's list. I will also add more sources and restate the sentences to more declarative ones, then I'll see what else I could do to the list. I'm just giving you a heads-up on what I plan to do. Cheers. PatTag2659, a hopeful aviator (talk) 11:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 13[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of international trips made by the President of the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Migration. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:32, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

21 April 2016[edit]

Please quit edit-warring. Please undo your reversion of Partition of States in the United States. It is an historical article, not a list. If the list of proposals for State partition duplicates matter in the historical article, or vice-versa, the duplicate matter can be deleted as appropriate, and replaced with a link to the other article; but the two articles serve different purposes and both should be kept. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 16:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

22 April 2016[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 16:39, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Reply[edit]

I apologize for the double-revert yesterday to the Partition of States in the United States article. I was completely caught off guard by your objection to the redirect and overreacted. In my mind the redirect was logical and appropriate, and consequently I expected that no one would object. As you have, I’ve undone my redirect and have begun a merge discusssion. I’ve started the discussion on the article’s talk page, and posted notice of it here. Kind regards. Drdpw (talk) 18:33, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Revert[edit]

Hi! I do not understand this edit and editsummary. Can you explain please? The Quixotic Potato (talk) 19:43, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@The Quixotic Potato: Glad to. You gave no edit summary, and when I looked at your edit I was unable to tell what, if anything, you changed, thus it appeared to be a pointless edit, albeit a good faith one. What did I not see? Drdpw (talk) 20:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
You saw no edit summary, you were unable to tell what changed, and so you decided to revert? Is that correct? What should you have done instead? The Quixotic Potato (talk) 20:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Have you done this kind of stuff before? The Quixotic Potato (talk) 20:11, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
@The Quixotic Potato: My action was appropriate under the circumstances as I perceived them. However, if I missed the point of your edit and jumped too quickly to revert, then you have my apologies. Drdpw (talk) 20:23, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
No need to apologize, I am just very confused. I mean, personally I do not understand many of the edits to articles like Uncertainty principle, but to me simply not understanding an edit is no reason to revert it. If you use something like WikiEdDiff (in your Preferences, under Gadgets, in the Editing section) then you can easily see what I have changed. Of course your action was not appropriate under the circumstances as you perceived them; because you can't simply revert an edit solely because you don't understand it. If I make an edit like this one then it is probably very difficult for you to determine what changed. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 20:34, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 23[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited United States presidential visits to Australia and New Zealand, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Queenstown and South Pacific. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:11, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Presidents trips[edit]

Hi. Could you make such entry about Bill Clinton? Thanks. Archway (talk) 04:46, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Or at least could you help me expand it, like you did with Bush. (List of international presidential trips made by Bill Clinton). Archway (talk) 06:21, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

July 2016[edit]

Information icon Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as List of international presidential trips made by Bill Clinton. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 03:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

United States presidential visits to countries in Central Europe[edit]

Hello Drdpw. I saw that your article United States presidential visits to countries in Central Europe includes only countries like Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia. As an European Wikipedian I see that Central European countries are also including states like Austria, Liechtenstein, Germany and Switzerland. There are also articles about United States presidential visits to Germany and United States presidential visits to Austria and Switzerland. What do you think that if these two articles can be merged with the main article so the definition of Central Europe would be larger. One other option is to rename the article to United States presidential visits to the Visegrád countries. Visegrád Group is an political group which these former Warsaw Pact Soviet satellite countries had founded after 1989. The term Central Europe is to larger to consider only countries like Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia. Your best --Mannerheimo (talk) 16:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Mannerheimo - As your suggestion of renaming the article to "Visegrád countries" would be the easiest to do, I will make that change. Thanks. Drdpw (talk) 19:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Recent edit to United States presidential visits to Austria and Switzerland[edit]

Information.svg Hello, and thank you for your recent contribution. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo your edit because I believe the article was better before you made that change. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you! MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)(Contribs)(please reply using {{ping}}) 05:57, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Reverts[edit]

As I have added sourced relevant content to an article, been willing to discuss by opening a discussion on the talk page, and even editing it in response to your broad statement, your reverts are quite problematic under BRD and common courtesy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Reverts[edit]

Please explain in full detail as to why the compromise revert that you made was unable to stand. I would agree as a compromise to remove the links, while the line-breaks and the VP column condensing is allowed to stand. You claim that I "reverted thought out edits", which was exactly what you did. I spent around an hour continuously trying to condense the table, removing extraneous details, etc. Yet you reverted twice without even resorting to the talkpage. I am not expecting for my edits to be returned in full, but I do not expect the current version of the article to stand as it without my edits being partially restored/modified.--Neveselbert 03:50, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

<br/>[edit]

Drdpw (with all due respect), I kindly urge you to reconsider your total opposition to the line breaks temporarily until we can come to a suitable arrangement on the Talk page. I would merely return solely this markup, without touching the VP column, until an agreeable compromise on the List is reached. This seems pretty reasonable, as the other half of the changes I had originally made will remain shelved until Talk consensus. Thank-you.--Neveselbert 19:41, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Neve-selbert, as the previous consensus was to have the "br/" included, restoring them is not something that I'm going to continue objecting to. I have effected the change in the list and I'll note this on the talk page this PM. Are you willing to do the same for the dating format, given that way it is now (M D, Y n-dash M D, Y) is the previous consensus format? Drdpw (talk) 20:33, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Of course, but I would like it to be at least considered by the community before shelving it altogether.--Neveselbert 20:38, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

{{See also}}[edit]

It is entirely unreasonable and unnecessary to remove such a hatnote. It is entirely and completely relevant and its return should be imperative. Readers may not even reach the end of the article, and I should note that Oldest living President of the United States redirects to List of Presidents of the United States by age#‎Timeline of oldest living Presidents. (And the chances of a reader scrolling outside the section is markedly lower than if they reached the page without clicking such a redirect.) I should also note that the article meant to be included in this hatnote is piped (or rather disguised) as Number living at the end of the page, and is not included with its actual title unpiped in full view. I strongly urge you to reconsider your revert. Thank-you.--Nevéselbert 12:33, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Neve-selbert, having the hatnote See also|Living Presidents of the United States and a(n undisguised) link to Living Presidents of the United States in the "see also" section not too very far down page is indeed unnecessary. This redundancy is the only reason why I reverted your edit. That said, I’ve affected a solution that clears my objection and will hopefully be okay with you and with others who watch & edit that page. What I've done is remove the see also section altogether and move the two linked articles from there into the body of the article. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 18:04, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Drdpw, I very much appreciate it. Good luck with the reformatting.--Nevéselbert 18:07, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

List of Vice Presidents of the United States[edit]

I simply do not understand. You thanked me for letting you know that I would lend a hand if you needed help with the reformatting, but when I do try to help and fix errors, you automatically revert me. Instead of reverting you should have left me a message informing me of the problem instead of communicating with a rather bizarre "Subsequent edits did not enhance formatting of table" edit summary. I literally cannot comprehend this edit summary. I spent hours proofreading the table and your revert just seems unnecessarily hostile and aggressive. I was not vandalising. I was just trying to improve the article. Please read the second bullet at WP:DONTREVERT. It states "Even if you find an article was slightly better before an edit, in an area where opinions could differ, you should not revert that edit, especially if you are the author of the prior text." Nevertheless, I regret this misunderstanding.--Nevéselbert 23:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Deletions[edit]

Dear Drdpw, you've deleted sentences in List of Presidents of the United States by age seemed to be consistent with the article.--Maher27777 (talk) 12:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Maher27777, as I noted in my edit summary, I trimmed sentences from the Overview section of the List of Presidents of the United States by age article because they were speculative and/or extraneous sentences in an already information packed section. Consistency with the article wasn't the issue. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 14:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Possibly you mean by speculative a future event may or may not happen, but I don't know what do you mean by extraneous . The article about the age records of presidents. You should improve the information, or correct the grammar, but not delete something could be useful. Thanks.--Maher27777 (talk) 23:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Overuse of Revolution template[edit]

Hi, you've been adding Template:Revolution sidebar to a lot of articles which seem only tangentially related to the topic. To be "part of a series on revolution", an article should be centrally concerned with revolution, either generically or specifically, which I don't think many of these articles are. I'll continue the discussion on Template talk:Revolution sidebar. --Macrakis (talk) 23:03, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Macrakis, Yes, I understand that I've added it to A LOT of pages. As I've stated in the summary space each time I've added the sidebar to a page, I've done so because the article is listed as being part of the series on revolution. Perhaps some of these articles do not belong in the series (and I can think of a couple that that could be removed)), and conversely, perhaps there are some that are not presently included, but ought to be added. That discussion, as you noted, is one for the template's talk page. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 23:21, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Democratic Party (United States)/meta/color#Rfc: #3333FF or #34AAE0[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Democratic Party (United States)/meta/color#Rfc: #3333FF or #34AAE0. Hi Drdpw. Since this matter affects both List of Presidents of the United States and List of Vice Presidents of the United States, I just thought that you may want to express your view on this. Thank-you. --Nevéselbert 21:05, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

List of Presidents of the United States Senate[edit]

While it is true that the sitting Vice President of the United States is, ex officio, the President of the United States Senate, it does not follow that the list of Presidents of the United States Senate is identical to the list of Vice Presidents of the United States. This is due to the numerous times in U.S. history in which there has not been a sitting Vice President and thus the President Pro Tempore of the Senate becomes the new President of the Senate (unless there simultaneously is a vacancy in the office of the President Pro Tempore, in which case the office of the Presidency of the Senate remains vacant until a Vice President of the United States or a President Pro Tempore of the Senate is appointed or elected. There have been 22 occasions in which there was no Vice President of the United States, during the following periods of time:

(i) after the First U.S. Congress met in its initial session but prior to John Adams being sworn in as VP on April 21, 1789 (during which 15-day period John Langdon served as the first President of the U.S. Senate);

(ii) from the date of death or resignation of a Vice President of the United States until the next Vice President is sworn in (be it after election or, since ratification of the 25th Amendment, upon appointment and congressional ratification), which occurred in 1812 (lasting 10 and 1/2 months), 1814 (lasting over 2 years and 3 months), 1832 (lasting over 2 months), 1853 (lasting 3 years and 10 and 1/2 months), 1875 (lasting 1 year and 3 and 1/2 months), 1885 (lasting over 3 years and 3 months), 1899 (lasting 1 year and 3 and 1/2 months), 1912 (lasting over 4 months) and 1973 (lasting 2 months);

(iii) from the date of death or resignation of a President of the United States (at which time the Vice President automatically becomes President of the United States and the office of the Vice Presidency becomes vacant) until the next Vice President is sworn in (be it after election or, since ratification of the 25th Amendment, upon appointment and congressional ratification), which occurred in 1841 (lasting 3 years and 11 months), 1850 (lasting 2 years and 8 months), 1865 (lasting 3 years and 11 months), 1881 (lasting 3 years and 5 and 1/2 months), 1901 (lasting 3 years and 6 and 1/2 months), 1923 (lasting 1 year and 7 months), 1945 (lasting 3 years and 9 months), 1963 (lasting 1 year and 2 months) and 1974 (lasting over 4 months); and

(iv) from the date on which a Vice President of the United States becomes Acting President pursuant to an invocation of the 25th Amendment by the President of the United States to declare temporary incapacity to serve as President until the time that such temporary incapacity has ended, which occurred in 1985, 2002 and 2007 and each lasting just a few hours.

In the aggregate, there has been no Vice President of the United States for a period of 38 years of the 227 years of the U.S. Senate's existence (over one-sixth of the time). Thirty different Presidents Pro Tempore have served as official President of the Senate during vacancies in the Vice Presidency, and some of them served as President of the Senate on more than one occasion. It thus is incorrect to state that a page listing the Vice Presidents of the United States is an adequate substitute for a page that lists the Presidents of the Senates and their terms in such office. Just as there's a page listing Speakers of the U.S. House of Representatives, it is important that readers have available a page that lists Presidents of the U.S. Senate.

For these reasons, I undid your revision of September 15, 2016 (yesterday) so that the page titled List of the Presidents of the United States Senate once again was available for viewing. However, since you redirected that page to the page titled List of Vice Presidents of the United States, a person seeking to visit the page with the U.S. Senate Presidents will not be able to get there using Wikipedia's search tool. Could you please undo your "redirection" of the page so that the List of the Presidents of the United States Senate once again is accessible to all? Thank you, AuH2ORepublican (talk) 23:23, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

AuH2ORepublican, according to Article I, the Vice President of the US is President of the Senate. Even though the President pro tempore of Senate presides and acts as President of the Senate (and even addressed as "Mr. President") when the office is vacant, he is not President of the Senate. Similarly, when the VP is Acting President (ie. GHW Bush & Dick Cheney) and thus not able to discharge their powers/duties as Senate President, he or she is still President of the Senate. Again, the President pro tempore of Senate only presides and acts as President of the Senate. We can discuss this further on the article's talk page. Now, regarding the redirect page United States President of the Senate. After thinking it over, I have retargeted the redirect to a more appropriate place, Vice President of the United States#Roles of the vice president. I know it's not what you requested, but I believe it's an appropriate target. Best regards. Drdpw (talk) 00:21, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Resilient Barnstar Hires.png The Resilient Barnstar
Hi Drdpw. Just wanted to let you know of my continuing appreciation of your supervision and editing philosophy over at List of Presidents of the United States and with other related articles, despite our occasional wrangling. Good luck, and all the very best in future. --Nevéselbert 15:35, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you![edit]

Meissen-teacup pinkrose01.jpg Sorry if you were peeved with my copy-editing over with § Living former presidents. The text looked jumbled on my ageing monitor, but I guess that's just me. Sorry for the inconvenience there. And with List of Vice Presidents of the United States, upon further reflection you were most probably right to revert the bulk of the changes I made. They were without consensus and I fully understand your reasoning in reverting; thanks for restoring some of the tweaks. Here's to an olive branch, I guess. Regards,--Nevéselbert 00:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution[edit]

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from President pro tempore of the United States Senate into List of Presidents pro tempore of the United States Senate. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I see you are still not adding the required attribution, as required under the terms of the CC-by-SA license. Please have a look at this edit summary as an example of how it is done. Please let me know if you still don't understand what to do or why we have to do it. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:35, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Diannaa, actually, I have been noting when I've imported sentences from one article to another in edit summaries since your first note. Nonetheless, I now see that I inadvertently did not do so the other day; thanks for catching my oversight and for applying the attribution. I will be more intentional and precise about this in the future.Drdpw (talk) 15:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits to US President articles...[edit]

Changing [[List of Presidents of the United States|U.S. Presidencies]] -> [[President of the United States|United States presidencies]] etc,. It seems to me that the proper usage for the Office succession box/template is "List of..." with the piped office title since the whole point of succession box is to show all the titleholders in chronological order. I did change the succession box at Pres of George Washington but then realized that you had changed a large number of these articles so thought I should discuss them on your talk page before I change any more of these boxes. Shearonink (talk) 20:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Shearonink, I just took a look at several succession boxes, and discovered, that while several gubernatorial succession boxes do link to List of governors of "X", several link to Governor of "X", and that several Supreme Court justice succession boxes link to Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States or Chief Justice of the United States rather than List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. That said, I suppose it may be preferable (more proper) for the link to lead to the list rather than to the main POTUS article. I'll go ahead and make the change you made to GW Presidency on the other presidency pages. Thanks. Drdpw (talk) 21:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks to you too, Shearonink (talk) 23:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Drdpw. You have new messages at Talk:Presidency of George Washington.
Message added 02:43, 30 September 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shearonink (talk) 02:43, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:List of Presidents of the United States#Alternative draft[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of Presidents of the United States#Alternative draft. Hi Drdpw. I'm sorry to bother again but I just wanted to know whether you approve of my revised post-election draft. Thanks,--Nevéselbert 20:45, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge[edit]

50k Challenge poster.jpg You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Image staggering[edit]

Hi I am wondering why you wanted to revert my edit on the First Lady page. I thought it would be okay to have the images staggering: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images#How_to_place_an_image --Jennica Talk 05:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

2016 update[edit]

Dear Drdpw..I think we should not add presidents-elect or vice presidents-elect to the oldest living lists until they are officially inaugurated.--Maher27777 (talk) 20:51, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Maher27777, Do you mean the List of Presidents of the United States by age? I agree with you in principle, that Trump should not be on the List of Presidents by age table until 1/20/2017; however, as he was added early this morning, and I don't want to play gate-keeper every time someone adds it over the next 10 weeks, I'll go with the flow (That's why I added Pence to the VP by age table). I'd encourage you to begin a discussion about this on the article's talk page if you feel strongly about it. I'll chime in if you do. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 21:12, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

List of Presidents of the United States by date and place of birth[edit]

Howdy. We're having a problem with a disruptive editor. GoodDay (talk) 02:56, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and I've just left a message on his/her talk page (as you too have done). Drdpw (talk) 03:04, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
He's just messed around with another related article. I'm not certain, but I think he's just breached the Arbcom ruling, regarding reverts on post-1932 American political related articles. GoodDay (talk) 03:09, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I know he is not POTUS yet, i will undo the revision, but will type beside his name elect President. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvfmgnlllj (talkcontribs) 03:39, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I've reported the editor to AN. GoodDay (talk) 04:16, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

November 2016[edit]

Is it possible for me to create a page? I thought it would be a good way to show that info in a different way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subtorrct (talkcontribs) 23:18, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

If you want to draft an article, you can create a userspace draft. Let me also suggest that you ask about adding the informational table you've created to the Living Presidents of the United States page, by discussing it at, Talk:Living Presidents of the United States. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 00:59, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Drdpw. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. --Nevéselbert 22:06, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Please note that blocks are possible if the reverts continue. See the message I just added to the report. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Request for feedback[edit]

You have recently contributed to the discussion at talk:Living Presidents of the United States about changes I have made. I initiated that discussion and have tried to drive it to consensus, in the process making more recent talk page edits than the other editors combined. For your participation in that discussion, I thank you. I am, however, wondering about my participation in that discussion.

  • Have I been pushing my own ideas too much?
  • Have I ignored those with opinions different from mine?
  • Can you think of any way my talk page involvement could have been improved?

You may answer me here, on my talk page, or by e-mail. Thank you for your desire to improve this online encyclopedia! YBG (talk) 05:04, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

housekeeping suggestion[edit]

Hi, thanks for trying to straighten things out. At the article talk, you commented, and I followed up as follows

There is no problem here if the consensus title or that title minus "List of" is used. I thought that JudgeRM had restored the consensus title, but I see that he simply added "list of" to my wayward move from yesterday. Drdpw (talk) 18:01, 28 November 2016 (UTC) I think this comment has been overtaken by moving/rename events NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:05, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I suggest you delete both remarks since its no longer relevant, but leaving them visible may confuse others. No worries deleting my remark, you have my permission if you delete your own. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

United States Bill of Rights and Use-mention[edit]

Hi, On your revert, you comment "This is one of the exceptions to the guideline" -- can you explain further? This looks pretty straightforward to me: the article is about the Bill of Rights, not about the name "the Bill of Rights". Regards, NapoliRoma (talk) 23:34, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

NapoliRoma, your wording, "The Bill of Rights comprises the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution" seemed like a poor substitute and a bit inaccurate. The BoR is not a separate document from the Constitution, as could be implied from that opening sentence. (Take for example, the opening sentence of The Canterbury Tales article, "The Canterbury Tales is a collection of 24 stories that runs to over 17,000 lines written in Middle English by Geoffrey Chaucer".) That said, I do see your point; and after mulling-over WP:UMD, looking at the opening sentence of the Reconstruction Amendments article, and checking out how the National Archives website introduces the BoR, I've edited the opening sentence of the BoR article to state, "The Bill of Rights is the first 10 amendments to the Constitution" (a direct NA website quote). Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 16:05, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Sounds like a straightforward and accurate wording to me. Thanks! NapoliRoma (talk) 17:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

A 2016 election barnstar[edit]

Team Barnstar.png The Teamwork Barnstar
To @Neve-selbert, Drdpw, JFG, GoodDay, and Spartan7W: for collaborative work together in preparing the President- and Vice-President-elect changes to the lists of Presidents and Vice Presidents of the United States. Thanks for your efforts! YBG (talk) 22:08, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
@YBG: Thank you very much for the barnstar. I appreciate the work you did to facilitate those conversations. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 22:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Nevéselbert 17:20, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Theological Framework and Models[edit]

Can you guide me to existing theological models and frameworks to providence and positive views on applied dimension of the same.59.96.160.179 (talk) 23:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Reversions of mis-capitalized titles[edit]

Drdpw I humbly ask that you please explain yourself. I do not understand why you are breaking wp:Article Title and wp:capitalization conventions by reverting my moves re: the often mis-capitalization of the word "president" in articles and article titles. Please review Chicago Manual of Style Online. Section 8.92, Regards GenQuest "Talk to Me" 20:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

List of Presidents of the United States[edit]

Howdy, ya forgot Taylor & Hayes :) GoodDay (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

James Mattis[edit]

Grrrr, nothing more frustrating then dealing with less knowable editors & IPs. Mattis' been confirmed as Secy of Defense, but try & explain to others that he hasn't been sworn in yet. GoodDay (talk) 22:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

List of Presidents by Time in Office[edit]

I see that you removed my footnote about leap seconds. On the talk page several people has asked or discussed this. No one objected. Seems significant enough to warrant a footnote. What is the threshold for a footnote exactly? Perhaps the discussion page for the article - where leap seconds was mentioned is the proper place to discuss it before deleting. Volcycle (talk) 23:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Volcycle, I reverted your edit because it added insignificant information to the article. When I looked on the talk page I saw that one editor (in 2012) asked, "what about leap seconds?" and also saw that no one replied to the question directly. The lack of response then and the silence since around leap seconds & this table showed me that adding this incidental detail doesn't enhance or improve the table, and so doesn't need to be included. If you think that the article would be enhanced or improved by adding leap second details, please open a discussion on the article's talk page. Drdpw (talk) 15:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

January 2017[edit]

Information icon Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as United States presidential inauguration. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:53, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

US Presidential Administrations talkpage[edit]

I am quite confused here. You reverted me twice on grounds of "jumbling the flow" and "grabbling" of the discussion, yet all I was actually trying to do was neatly organise the discussion, similar to how you have often done at Talk:List of Presidents of the United States. Multiple editors may land at the Rfc in the next few days and may try creating their own draft of the template, and it would be much neater to include the drafts neatly tucked away, via {{cot}} and {{cob}}. Your comportment is bewildering, to say the very least.--Nevéselbert 15:35, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Nevé, In this context, where you've asked for feedback on a proposed change to the template, I think it's important to keep all elements of each person's feedback together in one place and in its proper context, even if different editors give you feedback in different ways. (I know it's more helpful to me this way as I contemplate my own position on the matter) Also, dislocating parts of peoples' posts on the talk page disturbs the record of what's been stated. If you want to mix and match everyone's comments in your sandbox, if that would help you hear what others are saying to you, then by all means do so; but please, leave peoples' talk page comments unaltered. Hope this aliviates some of the bewilderment over my comportment on the template talk page Drdpw (talk) 17:58, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:US Presidential Administrations[edit]

Template:US Presidential Administrations has been nominated for merging with Template:US Presidents. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. --Nevéselbert 09:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Presidency of James Madison[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Presidency of James Madison has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not qualify WP:CORRECTSPLIT. Entire content copied from James Madison#Presidency 1809–1817 without proper attribution.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Nevéselbert 20:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Drdpw, I had to PROD this article per WP:COPYWITHIN. You can't just copy content from one article and paste it into a redirect without given proper attribution.--Nevéselbert 20:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Neve-selbert, you apparently did not look at the edit summary, which states what I did, and which uses similar words to those for similar articles! It's simply rude of you to slap such a tag onto this article so quickly. The tag has been removed. Drdpw (talk) 20:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
My actions were not intended to be rude, merely ethical. I added the appropriate attribution through use of the {{Copied}} template at Talk:Presidency of James Madison and at Talk:James Madison. Since you were the one who carried it all out, you should have been the one adding attribution to both article talkpages. Make sure, you do this in future, please.--Nevéselbert 19:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
For the record, I went through a similar situation when creating List of successful votes of no confidence in British governments. Back in October 2016, Iridescent and Murph9000 notified me about the potential for copyright violation here at WP:HD, just in case you might be interested.--Nevéselbert 19:18, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Neve-selbert, then I apparently fell short of what was required in the way of attributions. I was basing my actions on the actions of of others, namely those of Orser67. I had no idea that I was in violation of the rules. I will give due diligence to this issue in the future, as I have tried to do in the past. Perhaps you should visit the other recently created "presidency of..." pages and place notations on those talk pages, as they are apparently lacking the proper attributions as well. I'm surprised you didn't notice; I wish you had, as I would have followed your lead. Drdpw (talk) 19:25, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
WP:CORRECTSPLIT notes that the split should be mentioned in the edit summary, but it states that the talk page templates are optional. So I've been following that. Orser67 (talk) 19:32, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for this input. Drdpw (talk) 19:39, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Rollback on President of the United States[edit]

Hi, I saw you rolled back my edit on the President of the United States page. However, since Washington was the 1st President, and Donald Trump is currently the 45th President, wouldn't that make the number 44 correct? After all, 44 Presidents have been sworn in after Washington to make 45. Supertanno (talk) 23:07, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Supertanno, all totaled (G.W. through D.T.), 44 persons have been sworn in as President of the United States. However, the number in the sentence is the number of persons since (aside from) Washington. All 43 persons who have been president since Washington have been a member of a political party. Washington was not, and so is not included in the count. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 23:32, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Drdpw, I understand your point about the since bit. Just to be sure I'm not crazy, I just counted through all the Presidents mentioned in Oath of office of the President of the United States, which totals out at 45 Presidents being sworn in, not 44. This would make the number of Presidents sworn in since G.W. 44, since 45-G.W.=44. Supertanno (talk) 12:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Supertanno, No, you're not crazy; Donald Trump, is indeed the nation's 45th president. He is however, only the 44th person to serve as president. This is because one person, Grover Cleveland served two non-consecutive terms and is numbered as both the 22nd and 24th U.S. president. Drdpw (talk) 14:59, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

People who've been in the Cabinet more than a decade[edit]

How is that list "WP:FORK; mere listcruft?" There are very few of them over a period of over 230 years. Outside of the FD Roosevelt administration there are only four. Mellon, Wirt, Gallitan and Wilson. This is very notable. Plus there are plenty of lists about longevity in office.Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:00, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Cleveland redirect[edit]

I would recommend you nominate this redirect at WP:RFD. I nominated it myself months ago with similar concerns, but was overruled by other editors.--Nevéselbert 18:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

It should be re-directed to Grover Cleveland, as all the other # President of the United States articles are re-directed to individual US Presidents. I wouldn't oppose the article deletion, btw. GoodDay (talk) 18:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Presidency of Abraham Lincoln copyright problem[edit]

Prose you added to the above article appears to have been copied from the copyright web page http://www.csgmidwest.org/policyresearch/1015-Nebraska-statehood.aspx or elsewhere online. Copying text directly from a source is a copyright violation. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions or if you think I made a mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Vice-President of the United States[edit]

Hi, In the process of reverting an IP's edit you also overrode my subsequent edit. I have now reverted to before the IP edit and added your changes in. -- Alarics (talk) 15:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Presidential timelines[edit]

Hi Drdpw, I created a few more short presidential timelines, and I think I'll publish the Wilson timeline soon, but then I think I'm done creating new presidential timelines. Not just for a week, but forever. Ethanbas (talk) 04:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

See further discussion [1]. Ethanbas (talk) 08:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

President-Elect[edit]

Care to explain? All I did was combine the rows like you see in other government officials' articles... It saves space as well... Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 00:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Martin Van Buren, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hugh White. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:33, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 17[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Independent Treasury
added a link pointing to Treasury building
James K. Polk
added a link pointing to Treasury building

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Founding Fathers of the United States[edit]

Minard38 (talk) 13:47, 22 March 2017 (UTC)Dear Drdpw, Your continued removal of an image of John Jay to the Founding Fathers page is confusing given that Jay is one of the seven most prominent Founding Fathers of the United States. I have not tried to make the article about John Jay as you continue to assert but rather have added supplemental information to adequately reflect his proper place among his peers. The Editors of the Selected Papers of John Jay at Columbia University are equally dismayed by your deletion. They and Pulitzer Prize winner Joseph Ellis (who recently wrote the Quartet and highlighted Jay's contributions in concert with Hamilton, Washington and Madison) and many other academics referenced on the page including Joanne Freeman and Richard Bernstein agree that Jay merits attention as already indicated in the introduction of the page, "Historian Richard B. Morris in 1973 identified the following seven figures as the key Founding Fathers: John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Washington.[4]

Since Jay is already mentioned in the article many times and is listed in the extensive chart I thought it appropriate to add his image to go with the existing images of Washington, Franklin, Adams and the other individuals who are illustrated. Thank you for reconsidering your repeated deletion of Jay's image.

Disambiguation link notification for March 24[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 18th United States Congress, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Crawford. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 31[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Presidency of Martin Van Buren
added links pointing to Alexander Macomb and Hugh White
Lumberjack
added a link pointing to Hal Willis

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:41, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

April 2017[edit]

Copyright problem icon Your addition to United States presidential election, 1860 has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 7[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Presidency of Abraham Lincoln, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page March to the sea. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Edit to Martin Van Buren[edit]

You put the questionable statement back in about there being 9 children in his blended family. But if you cannot identify the ninth child, I suggest you leave that out. TIA --Spray787 (talk) 22:03, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Days[edit]

Hello do you think days are needed for only this year on the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States Under Neil Gorsuch? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.36.68.29 (talk) 14:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:United States topics and Template:Politics in the United States[edit]

Hello, Drdpw, I changed those two templates, and you reverted those changes. I don't mind it.

What I disliked is that you described my changes as "disruptive". I was bold, not disruptive. I thnk that the "US topics" template is too large, and the "Politics in the US" was a better place for some of those links.

I mean, I think that articles like Electoral College, State legislature, Courts of appeals and American nationalism don't need links to articles like Great Plains, Water supply, Sports, Cuisine, Fashion, Chinese language or Obesity - and viceversa.

--NaBUru38 (talk) 20:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

List of Presidents pro tempore of the United States Senate[edit]

So it is better to have no link anywhere in the lede to the actual article about the thing that this is a list of than to break some rule about bold links? john k (talk) 13:21, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Like, if you can find some non-awkward way to link President pro tempore of the United States Senate without it being the bold header, I'd be happy to have that instead. I can't think of any. The link seems more important than some Manual of Style rule. john k (talk) 13:23, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Missing the point[edit]

This edit appears to miss the point completely. You are making it look as if every state that was admitted to the Union submitted a constitution to Congress in advance. The word "most" is about enabling acts, not about submission of proposed constitutions to Congress. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:23, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:US Presidential Administrations[edit]

Template:US Presidential Administrations has been nominated for merging with Template:US Presidents. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. — JFG talk 07:30, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Dwight Eisenhower link in List of Presidents of the United States[edit]

I changed the link since the previous link links to the NATO's headquarters formed in 1953 and doesn't accurately reflect Eisenhower's service prior to his presidency. The new link links to the force that was lead by Eisenhower prior to his presidency to more accurately reflect Eisenhower's service prior to his presidency which is what that column in the president's list is supposed to be.

I will make a note in the edit bar so it is more clear. Sorry for any confusion caused.

We need to include JFK White House staff, not just cabinet[edit]

We need to include JFK's White House staff, not just his cabinet. I was about to correct some of the technical problems there, so let me go back and put in that necessary information. The text describing Kennedy's administrative style is referring to his White House Staff (West Wing staff), not his cabinet. The cabinet consists of the departments of government, as opposed to the president's own staff, which is more flexible in arrangement and can be changed to suit the needs of each president (unlike departments). Each president has a different administrative style. Kennedy's White House staff was arranged in a less hierarchical manner than most. Trump tried an a-hierarchical form, but it did not work, so he brought in Gen. Kelly to install a pyramid. Whereas, Kennedy was far more effective at being his own chief of staff--the circular method worked for him. We therefore need to list the people that were on his staff. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:37, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Publicizing RFC[edit]

Hi, WP:RFC says to publicize an RFC at "Talk pages of closely related articles". I won't revert your edits but ask that you reconsider. It does seem closely related, given that it's a national political crisis regarding a presidential action and the scope of presidential power, as well as statements by congressional leadership and congressional investigations. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, I was just about to drop you a note on your talk page about this. A more appropriate place to promote the rfc would be the Presidency of Donald Trump article, as it's more closely related than is the more general President of the United States article. Likewise, the U.S. Congress article is too general an article to be considered closely related to this particular presidential action. My take on what constitutes "Talk pages of closely related articles" would be articles about the principle persons involved. Drdpw (talk) 17:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Air Force One[edit]

Ok, that is a good image of the planes door. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 6[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Maryland State House (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Annapolis Convention
Timeline of drafting and ratification of the United States Constitution (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Alexander Henderson

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Chief Justice of the United States[edit]

Would you mind elaborating on why you reverted my edit for "wordiness"? My tone appears to be in line with the remainder of the article, and I split the oversized list into roles inside and outside the judiciary which improved readability. The version you reverted says that the office moved beyond "prima inter partes" without additional context, implying that the list will be about how the Chief Justice's role changed *within* the court, when the list is really about how Congress chose to grant them further judicial powers outside to Supreme Court, which is what that phrase described. Thanks, MorpheusKafka (talk) 03:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

List of Presidents[edit]

Hi Drdpw, it's been a while since we last spoke. I was just wondering if you had any thoughts on my attempt at overhauling the List of Presidents of the United States at my sandbox. Just to be clear, I don't intend on being bold and implementing my attempt at redesigning the list. Rather I just wanted to know what you thought, given that you have previously had issues with the present layout, and what improvements you think can be made in regards to my casual attempt at an overhaul. Thanks.--Nevéselbert 20:51, 1 November 2017 (UTC)