User talk:Drdpw/Archive 1

TUSC token a4fceaf0933829e9c90c1f1e20708f17

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Fraternity/Sorority Userboxes.

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

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

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

Template: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

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

	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

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

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)

Jimmy Madison

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

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

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)

At U.S. Constitution

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)

Tay

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)

Redistricting article - External links

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 (talk • contribs) 06:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Column width reversion at United States Constitution

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)

British Prince

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 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

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. —Swpb^talk 16:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Timeline of drafting and ratification of the United States Constitution FLC

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)

frey

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

List of international trips made by the President of the United States

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)

George W. Bush's international presidential trips

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)

I noticed you removed reference of Bush being the first to visit Mongolia. Should the same be removed for Barack Obama? Obama's page states "Obama was the first sitting president to visit Cambodia, Ethiopia, Kenya, Laos, and Myanmar." Harold12 (talk) 20:07, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, this edit in the George W. Bush section of List of international trips made by the President of the United States. After seeing your comment, I edited that page's Barack Obama section, so that it focus on one important event, rather then simply state "he was the first president to visit these countries". Thanks. Drdpw (talk) 21:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

21 April 2016

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

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

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

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)

Presidents trips

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

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

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

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

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

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.--Neve–selbert 03:50, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

<br/>

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.--Neve–selbert 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.--Neve–selbert 20:38, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

{{See also}}

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.--Nevé–selbert 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.--Nevé–selbert 18:07, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

= List of Vice Presidents of the United States

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.--Nevé–selbert 23:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Deletions

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

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)

List of Presidents of the United States Senate

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!

	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. --Nevé–selbert 15:35, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

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,--Nevé–selbert 00:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

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...

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)

2016 update

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

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 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

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

November 2016

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 (talk • contribs) 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)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. --Nevé–selbert 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)

United States Bill of Rights and Use-mention

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

		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)

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

Theological Framework and Models

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

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

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

List of Presidents by Time in Office

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

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

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.--Nevé–selbert 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

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. --Nevé–selbert 09:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Presidency of James Madison

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. --Nevé–selbert 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.--Nevé–selbert 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.--Nevé–selbert 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.--Nevé–selbert 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

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

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

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.--Nevé–selbert 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

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

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

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

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)

Founding Fathers of the United States

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.

April 2017

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)

Days

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

Chief Justice of the United States

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

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.--Nevé–selbert 20:51, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Commonwealth

Please see Talk:Commonwealth (U.S. state)

Thanks

WhatsUpWorld (talk) 04:21, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Speaker

i took your idea and removed the numbering and put the congress list first i looked back at the history and for some reason the numbering was changed in January of 2016 by some Canadian the original numbering of a new number for each nonconsecutive term was there since the beginning when the page was created in 2005 AmYisroelChai (talk) 16:25, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Ford

Would you be opposed to a separate article on his post-presidency? - Informant16 November 27, 2017

@Informant16: not at all. Post-presidency articles already exist for Grant, Carter, and Clinton. Others—including Ford–had noteworthy post-presidencies as well. Drdpw (talk) 00:02, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

December 2017

Your edits in the age list article and in the death list article exhibit WP:OWN behavior and are not in line with a collaborative effort. Further edit warring will force me to report your behavior. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 23:16, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

President Template: Pension and Benefits

Hello, I noticed you removed this link from the President template. I am not sure your reasoning behind this as it is completely related to the presidency, just as much as "presidential pets" which is also in the template. Can you please explain your reasoning behind this?Zdawg1029 (talk) 19:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

@Zdawg1029: Sorry that my edit summary left you wondering why I removed the link from the template. While the article about the Former Presidents Act definitely is related to the U.S. presidency, a link to it does not belong in the template of POTUS/VPOTUS lists because it is not a list article, and only articles composed of one or more lists about the presidents or vice presidents belong in the template. Hope this clarifies why I made the edit. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 22:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. I never looked at it that it is a template of "lists", not just articles related to the President. Good thinking. Zdawg1029 (talk) 23:05, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Template:Senior SCOTUS Justices

Hello, can you further explain your rationale behind redirecting the template and deleting its existing content? I was under the impression that listing a group of 3 people on senior status (as is common with Template:United States courts of appeals senior judges and Template:United States 10th Circuit senior district judges, among others) is a template worth having. – JocularJellyfish ^Talk_Contribs 01:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@JocularJellyfish: As the template navigated between only three people—three retired SCOTUS judges who are included on the primary SCOTUS justice template—and that both the retired justices and the SCOTUS justices navboxes were on those three individuals' pages, the smaller template was of very limited usefulness, and certainly of no unique navigational value. That's why I redirected the template. A similar case could be made regarding the United States courts of appeals senior judges template you referenced. One further note, regarding the various Circuit senior district judge navboxes, the names on the ones I looked were not included in the corresponding Circuit district judge navboxes. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 01:50, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@Drdpw: Thanks for the insight. – JocularJellyfish ^Talk_Contribs 01:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

SCOTUS template

Your recent addition of the courts on the SCOTUS template is worth coming to your talk page to thank you and not just a thank you notice. It's one of those "why didn't I think of that" additions that you thought of and did. Thanks for this major improvement to the template. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Removal of Useful Lists and Loss of Functionality

Hmm. While the new graphics are visually appealing, you've eliminated a written list that was very useful. Anyone reading a particular decision of the Supreme Court might like to get a quick list of who was on the Court on that date of argument or decision. The old list provided the membership in an easier copy and paste format and in the conventional descending order of seniority on the Court. Using those lists was much quicker and easier than trying to put the same information together from these graphics. Sorry, but for those purposes, this update is a loss of functionality. There was a reason why the previous list was formulated in the way it was. The previous list literally was justices by court composition. These graphs are just a duplication of the date of appointment and seat succession visuals broken into discrete periods. You've lost the major benefit of the previous chart and the rationale for its very existence. Try this: Dred Scott v. Sandford was decided on March 6, 1857. Quick, copy and paste a list of the membership of the Court on that date in the conventional format of descending order of seniority. This took about five seconds with the previous version of this page. Now you try putting that information together using these appointment and succession graphics. The page you deleted was what a court composition chart LOOKS LIKE. I'm sorry, but why is somebody with a divinity degree imposing a format on a page used by legal practitioners? Did you even understand what a court composition chart is used for? Did you even understand that each entry listed the justices in descending order of seniority?

That page has been moved to a title that unambiguously identifies its contents—Gallery of United States Supreme Court composition templates—as per WP:PRECISION. Also, the next time you barrage someone with criticism, please sign your post, and forego the abrasiveness. Thanks. Drdpw (talk) 23:43, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Reagan Talk page

Hi. Hate to bother you but if you could weigh in on the Reagan talk page with this on-going thing with NYCJosh, I'd appreciate it.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

list of vice presidents

those notes have nothing to do with their vice presidencies just because their there for a long time because no one noticed it doesn't mean it should stay and just because you're the one who added them in doesn't mean they should stayעם ישראל חי (talk) 15:40, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Reason of revers?

My noting Carter's passing Reagan's age is entirely useful and its omission useless. LE (talk) 07:10, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

LE, as I stated in the edit summary, second longest isn’t notable. The section is about longest and shortest. Drdpw (talk) 08:02, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

As a practical matter the article ranks everyone and all-time rank is more important and enduring than rank among the living.LE (talk) 13:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

LE,Drdpw either way he's not the second longest lived as ford still is so he's just the third longest lived. עם ישראל חי (talk) 15:24, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Twenty-Second Amendment

"But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term."

Hi. Here's how I interpret the two clauses. The person who was the incumbent President at the time of proposal (#1, who happened to be Truman) was exempt for life. The person who was the incumbent at the time of ratification (#2, if that had been different than HST) would not have had their previous service applied to the term limit, but it was subsequently applicable. They make a distinction between #1 and #2. So if, for example, it had been ratified between 53-56 instead of 51, under clause 2, Eisenhower could have been elected to an *additional* two terms (but only two), while under clause 1, Truman could still have theoretically come out of retirement and been elected as many times as he wanted. Does that make sense? JTRH (talk) 13:21, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Articles of Confederation further reading section

Dear Drdpw, thanks for including my book, We Have Not a Government, in the further reading section of your Articles of Confederation essay. So that people who are interested in the subject can follow links as needed, please note that my last name is spelled "Van Cleve," not Van Cleave. Best wishes, George Van Cleve — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.46.150 (talk) 23:04, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I cannot take credit for adding the book, but I will correct the typo. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 23:38, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Farewell address vs farewell speech

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

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

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)

Possible Wikipedia-integrated publication

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)

Chief Justice of the United States

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

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?

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)

List of SC justices by seat

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

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)

Vice President of the United States - Election section

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

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 page 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

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?

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.

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)

international trips by president

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)

VOTUS categories

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

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)

Edits

So this edit is okay, but mine weren't? Are you after me for some reason or what? There was nothing wrong with my edits, and I don't know why you made a big deal about it... no one else did. Corky 18:10, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I viewed that edit as a compromise between your position—"no multiple linking"—and mine—"duplicate and repeat links are okay in tables". It cuts down on the overlinking while preserving ease of reading. Drdpw (talk) 20:46, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Lead in living POTUS

I reverted your recent edit. I don't feel real strongly about this, though. I did notice that your edit omits the current ages, which might be of interest to some who are thinking about who might die next. After making the revert, it occurred to me that a potential compromise position would be to shorten the sentence in the lead and and add a wikitable with the names, ages and terms of service. This would add visual interest not that we no longer have a photo. Maybe we could try it in the VP article first? YBG (talk) 16:45, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

PS, do you have any opinions about the UK and NZ pages? YBG (talk) 16:46, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Nancy Pelosi

Not understanding your issue with me referring to Pelosi as a two-time House Speaker.

It's common that when someone accomplishes something multiple times, they are called an (insert number here)-time (insert accolade here).

• Tom Brady is a five-time Super Bowl Champion
• Beyonce is a 22-time Grammy Award winner
• Nancy Pelosi is a two-time Speaker of the House

Don't assume people already know things.

Vjmlhds (talk) 03:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, a third voice has spoken, and sided with you. I said if someone else spoke up and went against me, I'd surrender, and I'll live up to it. No hard feelings. Vjmlhds (talk) 00:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

February 2019

Your recent editing history at List of proposed amendments to the United States Constitution shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:37, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to template you about this - I'm just being fair to the both of you and I don't want to appear as if I'm playing favorites. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Oshwah, As TySoltaur has insisted that demonstrably inacurate information be inserted into the article and now, a few dew days later, calls the addition of reliable sources and the fine-tuning of text vandalism, perhaps it would be best to have an uninvolved editor take look at the changes made by TySoltaur and myself, and make an independent determination of how the section should read. Thank you. Drdpw (talk) 06:36, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Drdpw - I think that's a good idea. This will assure that completely uninvolved and neutral eyes and ears are given to the article and the content in dispute so that the best decision is chosen. It will also keep you both out of trouble (lol) and away from the pitfall of edit warring and having to go through that whole mess. No problem; like I said, I did this to be completely fair to the both of you, not to be a dick hole and spam you with templates. :-) I really don't like blocking good editors who are trying to do what's best for the project, so I try to provide as many appropriate alternatives as possible before having to resort to that. Start a discussion on the article's talk page and reach out to users there and ping them for input. A good place to look is any project that the article is associated with. You could also create an RFC, but I'd wait until you've run out of people to ask first. Good luck :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

The Editor's Barnstar

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

A message from The One I Left

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

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

A message from V8americanpower

Can you please stop undoing the edits to the Dondero page? I'm in the process of creating a page for Daniel Casey (the Dondero Grad). He is a grad of Dondero (class of 2000). [2] V8americanpower (talk) 23:23, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Kavanaugh edits

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

Speaker elections: Election box

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

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

Provincial Congresses

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

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

Recent moves

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

@Interstellarity: I wasn't misreading the consensus, I was simply using it as justification for moving related articles in accordance with MOS:JOBTITLES, specifically the 3rd bullet point @ Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography#Positions, offices, and occupational titles; although the article titles reverted have the singular of the job title, the job titles are preceded by a modifier, the, and so, like articles with a plural of the job title, should be lower case. Drdpw (talk) 21:44, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I still don't agree. I will be requesting a third opinion. Interstellarity (talk) 23:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Hi. I've never edited this article, nor am a grammarian. MOS:JOBTITLES appears to me to be on point and clear on this issue, since "the" is clearly a definite article. Consensus at Talk:List of presidents of the United States seemed to be The MOS guidance on job titles, including presidents, has been reaffirmed in several discussions over the last couple years; examples of use have been refined and have gained consensus. So I see no compelling reason to change it for the articles in question. To me personally, an article titled "List of international trips made by the President of the United States" would mean trips made by the current office holder. The article in question is not. Now, just to prove I am not a grammarian, why wouldn't the article discussed use the plural? For example call the article "List of international trips made by presidents of the United States", since we are discussing multiple presidents. -- Work permit (talk) 00:53, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@Work permit: How about the other articles that I recently moved? Interstellarity (talk) 01:43, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

It would be helpful if I had a list, since I can't be sure I caught them all. The lists of people pardoned and list of actors seem to still fit the description that president is preceded by a definite article. Religious affiliations uses the plural "presidents" so per MOS that would not be capitalized either. Have I missed any others?---- Work permit (talk) 01:59, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@Work permit: No, the singular "president" doesn't mean current as in D. J. T., but current as in incumbent/sitting – whomever was POTUS at the time. Drdpw (talk) 06:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I see. So "List of international trips made by presidents of the United States" would include trips made by GWB after he left office?---- Work permit (talk) 13:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@Work permit: Technically yes, which is why the title List of international trips made by the president of the United States should be restored, and why the singular form in: List of people pardoned or granted clemency by the President of the United States, List of actors who played the President of the United States, List of tie-breaking votes cast by the vice president of the United States, List of actors who played the Vice President of the United States should remain. Drdpw (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@Interstellarity: Please consider restoring the singular form List of international trips made by the president of the United States, and restoring my earlier move to lower case letters in List of actors who played the President of the United States, List of people pardoned or granted clemency by the President of the United States and List of actors who played the Vice President of the United States. Please also consider removing your move request for the two Actors who played ... pages, as the singular form of the job title is correct as I've noted above. Drdpw (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

A message from David Lloyd-Jones

Hi,

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

Cheers,

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

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

Good Dr.,

My comment above states my "issue" in full. Members of the Supreme Court are Justices of the United States.

FWIW, "Associate Justice" is a sloppy invention with no historical or Constitutional claim to existence, and "Justice of the Supreme Court" is just dopey and ignorant. Cases don't arise in the Supreme Court, they arise in the United States. Rulings don't apply to the Supreme Court, they apply to the United States. Etc.

I have very little hope of sanity prevailing on this: American is a degenerate form of the English language and has lost the use of the subjunctive, of subject-verb agreement, and of any but accidental correspondence to objective reality.

Flail on! — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Lloyd-Jones (talk • contribs) 15:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Who would preside in the impeachment trial of the Vice President

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

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

There is a difference of legal opinion as to who would preside if a vice president were on trial in the Senate after impeachment by the House.  The vice president is, under the Constitution, also president of the Senate, but it is a longstanding principle of American law that no person may be the judge of his or her own case.[4] Goldstein, Joel K., "Can the Vice President preside at his own impeachment trial?: A critique of bare textualism," Saint Louis University Law Journal (Vol. 44:849, pp. 849-870)

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

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

Unwarranted on what basis?

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

per your request, I will move discussion to the LBJ talk page ([5]) Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Set index article reverts

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

(Also, regarding the applicability of that discussion, I should note that 2 of the articles you reverted were among the five examples I gave as examples for editors to consider when I started the thread.) Colin M (talk) 23:42, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

And sorry for the spam, but a timely response would be appreciated. I paused my edits after your first couple reverts, since it seems like you may find issue with this general pattern of changes, but I'd kind of like to resume the job soon, if possible, while the context is still fresh in my mind and I still have the JWB session going and relevant tabs open and stuff. Colin M (talk) 00:17, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

@Colin M: After reading through the discussion, I see how thoughtfully you all have worked through this issue, and find the reasoning for why lists of lists are not set indexes to be sound. →Emerging consensus: Y. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 01:34, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Article Two of the United States Constitution

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

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

• Have the author release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License (CC BY-SA 3.0) by leaving a message explaining the details at Talk:Article Two of the United States Constitution and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure they quote the exact page name, Article Two of the United States Constitution, in their email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If you hold the copyright to the work: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Article Two of the United States Constitution. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0", or that the work is released into the public domain, or if you have strong reason to believe it is, leave a note at Talk:Article Two of the United States Constitution with a link to where we can find that note or your explanation of why you believe the content is free for reuse.

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

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

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

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

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

Why is the information being removed

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

Close at Ronald Reagan

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

Sdkb, my issue concerns your closing the conversation with a judgement that Consensus has emerged to include a mention of Reagan's remarks, which misstates the outcome of the conversation. What emerged was a rough consensus that the remark might be worth mentioning if it were integrated into the narrative text, but not as a separate subsection about the remark. Also, there was no consensus reached on where or how the remark could be integrated into the article. Accurate and sometimes nuanced closing statements are especially important in discussions on the Ronald Reagan talk page. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 20:55, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, that's helpful. I agree with you that there wasn't a clear consensus on how to integrate the material. Given that the discussion had remained stagnant for three months, I felt the best way to move forward was to close it on the question of whether to include, and to then leave discussion on how to include to the other discussion, which remains open. Would you be okay with me redoing the close with further description, or would it be better to find an admin to assess it? Sdkb (talk) 21:07, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb, closing with more description is fine by me. Much obliged. Drdpw (talk) 21:16, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

A message from Sleyece Cease and Desist

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

Sleyece: I am neither harassing you nor attacking you. You are the one who was blocked a few years ago for edit-warring on the Edith Wilson page, among others. You are the one who, after your indefinite block was reduced, promised not to repeat the behavior – which you did a few weeks ago: Edith Wilson 13:57, December 11, 2019 and Edith Wilson 14:42, January 30, 2020; Dick Cheney 13:47, December 26, 2019; George H. W. Bush 13:55, December 26, 2019. And further, I am not chasing your "edits across the site;" these 3 articles are on my watch list. Regards. Drdpw (talk) 00:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I assumed you would use my past against me. That is no excuse for violating the rules yourself. However, as long as were in agreement, I'll just leave the pages on your watch list alone and edit elsewhere. Thanks. Sleyece (talk)

Presidency of Ronald Reagan

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

Procedural question for Reagan article

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

Removal of peer-reviewed research

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

A message from Zddoodah

Impeachments and List of Presidents

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

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

Jimmy Carter

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

A message from Mdewman6

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

A message from scooteristi

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

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

Good job

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

Invitation to RedWarn

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

• Easy to use - Unlike other tools, RedWarn uses easy to interpret icons and simple summaries for common actions, reducing both learning and reading times.
• Supports rollback and rollback-like functionality - Unlike Twinkle, RedWarn supports both rollback and rollback-like functionality for users will rollback permissions. This decreases waiting times during rollbacks.

• Making life easier on the battlefield - Ever been in the middle of a vandalism war or campaign, frantically reloading the history page to see a new edit? No more! Enabling RedWarn's "Alert on Change" feature will automatically send you to the latest edit when a new edit occurs - and if you're working on something else, RedWarn will send you a notification while the tab is still open in the background. No time wasted.
• Rollback previews - If you're ever worried about the changes a rollback will make, especially in the case of reverting good faith edits, you can click the rollback preview button to preview the difference a rollback will make, with the version that will be restored on the right, and the latest revision on the left.

• Always the latest revision - RedWarn will automatically redirect you to the latest revision if the rollback is no longer for the latest revision - no more frustrating errors.

• Fast - RedWarn can automatically select a warning level, and, on vandalism and content removal rollbacks, automatically select a warning template.

• Built on your feedback - RedWarn is receiving frequent feature additions and changes based on your feedback. If there's something you don't like, or would like to see, just say!

• and many more features ...but I don't want to fill your userpage.

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

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

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

Redirect-quality and List-class

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

Chicdat, I appreciate the information and Mea culpa! But why ask me to undo my edits just to turn around and revert them w/o giving me time to make things right? Drdpw (talk) 13:03, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, sometimes I revert without thinking. 🐔 Chicdat ^ChickenDatabase 14:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

United States Electoral College

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

Edith Wilson

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

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

Justices' length of service

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

Sorting Justices by birthdate

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

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

Thank you for the clarification and sorry for the misundestanding.Wikarus (talk) 17:19, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

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

Hurricane Eta impacts table

Hello Drdpw, you recently undid one of my edits for Hurricane Eta stating that including a table was redundant. Can you elaborate on this? From what I understand once the fatalities reach two digits we usually include a fatality breakdown table for easier verification. All previous high fatality hurricane pages have this feature. Hurricane21 (talk) 00:30, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

A message from Zvikorn

What is the correct order of succession after secretaries? As far as I know its senators of the majority party by seniority. Idan (talk) 07:12, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

That is incorrect. The current Succession Act includes no one beyond cabinet secretaries. See Presidential Succession Act for more information. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 15:30, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

US intellectual tradition in political reforms

Hey. Thank you for your considered statements over the last couple weeks at Talk:United States Electoral College. I wanted to expand on a string of Congressional reform addressing state mal-apportionment in federal elections. I noted previously, efforts to curb state majority abuses included three Acts of Congress passing both House and Senate in an effort to shape political communities that resembled the underlying populations geographically, socially, and ideologically (the culturally-related basket of religion, ethnic practice, and politics): contiguity (1842), and compactness (1872), including equal population (1911) (but only for a few sessions at a time, and never enforced).

If we expand the observation from listing Acts of Congress to exploring who was sponsoring them, the topic takes on an interesting aspect of US political intellectual history. The 1842 legislation was sponsored by Jacksonian Democrats, the 1872 by Lincoln Republicans, and the 1911 by Republican and Democratic Progressives. Wiki-fencing on Talk pages notwithstanding, I understand the impulse to the National Popular Vote generally to be aligned with that intellectual tradition. To take another page from the same democratizing impulse, if the states abuse their Constitutional duty to elect US Senators by their legislatures for thirty consecutive years as they did in the Gilded Age, then the American people will pass a Constitutional Amendment taking the abused trust away from the bad actors subverting their democratic republic.

So it is, that if the states do not refrain from the egregious anti-democratic practice of winner-take-all selection of their presidential electors, I expect that in due time the American people will take away the state legislature role in choosing a president, in one way or another. I will regret the loss of political community that might follow uniform standards for redistricting by equal population, contiguous boundaries, compact shapes, and respecting political boundaries aligned with the state geography. But the voting people are sovereign, at the very least, even if the non-voting populations of the voters' neighbors who are immigrants, young, and transients are left out of the national equation the future.

But whenever a persistent political majority takes form of the same opinion, it must be allowed to prevail, or we lose the American experiment that the London Economist last week noted is the political reason that Americans respect themselves and why others around the globe in turn respect them. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:59, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Invite!

Please accept this invitation to join the Tropical cyclones WikiProject (WPTC), a WikiProject dedicated to improving all articles associated with tropical cyclones. WPTC hosts some of Wikipedia's highest-viewed articles, and needs your help for the upcoming cyclone season. Simply click here to accept!

It appears that you took a heavy interest on tropical cyclones recently, so I'm sending you this invite to join this WikiProject. SMB99thx my edits 15:43, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Re. Supreme Court of the United States

You're absolutely right that "the common understanding of 'good behavior' is 'life tenure,'" but that common understanding isn't technically accurate according to the plain text of the Constitution. When it comes to law, I favor linguistic integrity over semantic practicality and lexical convenience. Nonetheless, I acknowledge that non-lawyers aren't as nitpicky. I'd also agree that the basis for my edit would hold up better at a judicial convention than in a tea room discussion. So, this is one of those times when I'm content to let the non-legally-trained masses be pragmatically informed but technically misled.--Kent Dominic·(talk) 19:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

P.S. Re. civics, wouldn't it be nice to let the masses consider what "good behavior" is supposed to mean, just as the legal community generally wonders, since Congress has never addressed the issue statutorily? --Kent Dominic·(talk) 19:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Drdpw,
Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! -Shift674-🌀 ^contribs 18:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

---

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

– Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.

Office of the Former President

Hello! I wanted to let you know I cannot stand Trump in any form. My creating the page is not “pro Trump”. I simply think it’s notable and will be quickly expanded as more info becomes available. I think perhaps the best route if you don’t agree is AfD? But I hope that it is kept. Thank you, and happy editing! —Kbabej (talk) 23:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

This is not vandalism. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 00:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Sub tropical storm alpha

Today the NHC upgraded alpha to 60kt, you can check the twitter as well so you can read it TalephG (talk) 21:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@TalephG: According to the TCR, the 60kt wind speed occurred while the system was still extratropical. Its peak wind speed while a subtropical system was 45kt. You need to change the 60kt figure you have edited into Subtropical Storm Alpha (2020) back to 45kt. Drdpw (talk) 21:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok sorry, I didnt know :( TalephG (talk) 14:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

please forgive me, I didnt know, I just joined the hurricane community in 2019 and 2020 was my first full season. I guess I forgot to see the TCR. TalephG (talk) 14:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

New message from Shearonink

Hello, Drdpw. You have new messages at Talk:George Washington.
Message added 20:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shearonink (talk) 20:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

revert at List of Presidents of the United States

I'm not sure if you intended to revert the copy-edit I made to the lede as well, I've returned it to the text (although not the template). If you're not satisfied with my copy-edit, happy to discuss on the talk page. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1009741187

Way better, thank you KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Twinkle

False positive?--Oblio4 (talk) 15:33, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Apparently not. So ... please – explain.--Oblio4 (talk) 21:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@Oblio4: Ya, using N-dashes was improper; now, using Em-dashes (un-spaced) would be proper. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

There is, almost invariably, a mixture of ndashes and mdashes (not to mention masquerading hyphens and double-hyphens) in every article of substantial size. Quote (emphasis mine) ... use either unspaced em dashes or spaced en dashes, with consistency in any one article:

• An em dash is always unspaced (without a space on either side):

Another "planet" was detected—but it was later found to be a moon of Saturn.

• An en dash is spaced (with a space on each side) when used as sentence punctuation:

Another "planet" was detected – but it was later found to be a moon of Saturn.

--Oblio4 (talk) 01:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

A message from TomVenam2021

Hi, I saw you removed my edit on the List of presidents page on Wikipedia, I think we should change the images to the portraits. TomVenam2021 (talk) 02:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC) @TomVenam2021L: As I stated in my edit summary, please discuss picture changes on talk page. Picture changes on that page need consensus. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 14:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

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.