Revision as of 16:16, 21 April 2016 editJdcrutch (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,147 edits →21 April 2016: Request to undo edit-warring.← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:30, 21 April 2016 edit undoJdcrutch (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,147 edits →21 April 2016: Rm edit-warring warning per WP:EW, revising message to user.Next edit → | ||
Line 314: | Line 314: | ||
== 21 April 2016 == | == 21 April 2016 == | ||
⚫ | Please quit edit-warring. Please undo your reversion of ]. 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. ] | ] 16:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC) | ||
] Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an ]. 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 article's ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See ] for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ]. | |||
'''Being involved in an edit war can result in your being ]'''—especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] 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.<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ] | ] 16:15, 21 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
⚫ | Please undo your reversion of ]. It is an historical article, not a list. ] | ] 16:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:30, 21 April 2016
|
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)
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 Misplaced Pages 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)
|
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)
3RR...
Drpdw, you're a regular, so I won't insult you with a template, but you're over the WP:3RR at Children of Henry VIII... Hchc2009 (talk) 18:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Annapolis Convention (1786), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
May 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Titles of Nobility Amendment may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- #] (December 31, 1811
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
June 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of Presidents of the United States by date of birth may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- *President ] (born November 2, 1865} was {{Age in years and days|1860|08|15|1865|11|02}} younger than First Lady [
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:26, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Jimmy Madison
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)
July 2014
Hello and welcome to Misplaced Pages. When you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at Template talk:US Constitutional Tax Law, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
- Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
- With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Thank you. TJRC (talk) 16:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Article One of the United States Bill of Rights may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- {{quote|After the first enumeration required by the first article]of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:32, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Declaration of Independence (Trumbull) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- Lynch, Jr.; the farthest two figures on the right–Thomas McKean and Philip Livingston); and one of three figures seated in the left rear–George Walton. Additionally, two
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
At U.S. Constitution
Over the last couple weeks, you are doing yeoman work in rewriting the United States Constitution article. But no consensus is established for reorganization.
It seems to me the article is losing its topical organization of the text, resulting in a mere listing. The table of contents is becoming a wall of enumeration without conveying any sensible information for the general reader. Each section heading contains only one paragraph.
I like much of your actual text writing, summarizing the description of amendments in one voice without the back and forth of previous wiki-edits. But I would appreciate any explanation or justification so I can understand why your revision is better than the previous framework.
I am happy to concur with the new outcome if I am missing something, I was just wondering what I am missing in editorial insight. Thanks in advance. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- @TheVirginiaHistorian: The (unquestionably major) editing I’ve done has been motivated by my desire to improve this article; it should be a good or even featured article, which , at the present time, it is not. When I first started with this, there were several sentences repeated word for word twice or three times. Looking specifically at the Amendments section, I’m struck by how random the sub-section & sub-sub-section divisions seem, and how uneven, and at times scattered, the treatment of each amendment is, and by how few citations there are. I’m also struck by how little is said about Amendments 11-27, labeled as “subsequent” amendments (leaving me, as a reader, w/the impression that subsequent means later appendages not worth a great amount of attention –which I know is not the case, it’s just how it feels).
- Thanks for your input and kind words about the content of what I’ve written. Please know that, while I am of the opinion that several parts of the article appear (to me) to be tarnished by over-handling, I’m not attempting to cleanse it of the back and forth of previous wiki-edits; just polish it up a bit. That aid, I do see and concur with what you said above about the impact my editorial re-organization has had on the user-friendliness, if you will, of the article. Therefore here’s what I propose (and I’ll also post this idea on the Constitution Talk Page), I’ll trim the amendment descriptions a bit and organize them topically
“Safeguards of liberty” – amendments 1, 2, 3 & 4
“Legal protections” – amendments 5, 6, 7 & 8
“Unenumerated rights and reserved powers” – amendments 9 & 10
“Expansion of citizen rights” – amendments 13, 14, 15, 19, 23, 24 & 26
“Restriction of citizen rights” – amendments 11 & 18
“Governmental authority” – amendments 16 & 21
“Government processes and procedures” – amendments 12, 17, 20, 22, 25 & 27. Drdpw (talk) 14:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)- Thanks. I may have some alternatives for categories, but we are agreed as to the need for a topical organization. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited United States Constitution, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bootlegging. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Typo in diagram at Article Five of the US Constitution
Hi there Drdpw. I loved the diagram you produced to explain the amendment process of the US Constitution (at Article Five of the United States Constitution). A (very) minor quibble - there is a repeated "t" in "twentty". Are you able to amend the image and re-upload? Many thanks. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 22:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
November 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Saginaw County, Michigan may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- ] meaning "place of the outlet" –''sag'' ({{lang-en|link=no|an opening}}) and ''ong'' ({{lang-en|link=no|place of}}."<ref>[http://www.michigan.gov/hal/0,1607,7-160-15481_20826_20829-
- River]] to form the ]. The Refuge is entirely within Saginaw County.<ref></ref>
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Tay
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 06:48, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Help, please
Hi, Drdpw! I'm trying to use this timeline in the Portuguese Misplaced Pages using it for the Portuguese Presidents. However, there are five Portuguese Presidents who were in office less than a year. When I try to put that information in the table, the time in office doesn't show. What should I do to fix this? Thank you in advance. Joaopais 03:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Redistricting article - External links
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:
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)
- 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
Disambiguation link notification for April 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sigma Tau Gamma, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Episcopal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 14 April 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)
Any interest in contributing to a wiki on Representation?
I am creating a wiki to cover only the topic of Representation. I see that you have made several major edits to the Apportionment Amendment and I thought this might interest you. If you are interested, you can email me through the Email user tool (If you do such, please leave a You've got mail message on my talk page.) Thank you. I Use Dial (talk) 19:27, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
October 2015
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Tax per head may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- A '''head tax''' {also known as a '''poll tax''', '''capitation''', or '''community charge''') is a ] of a uniform, fixed amount applied to an individual in accordance with the census (as
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Reference errors on 1 November
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
National Popular Vote Interstate Compact
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 16:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Timeline of drafting and ratification of the United States Constitution FLC
Hi, Drdpw. Unfortunately, it looks like the FLC was archived by one of the delegates before I saw the message you sent. You can start another FLC whenever you like, as FLC does not have a version of the FAC rule requiring two weeks before a re-nom. However, if you don't mind I'd like a chance to offer a talk page review before you nominate it again. I like history articles, and we don't see much from this category at FLC. In fact, I think that may be why you didn't get enough reviews; there isn't a large base of reviewers in your field. Luckily, you can do something to broaden your pool of potential reviewers. This time of year is traditionally slow for us, and there are nominations in categories such as numismatics, hurricanes, and music that are also languishing at the moment. If you have any spare time in your editing, consider reviewing one or more of the lists currently needing review; often, these editors will remember what you did and keep you in mind when they go to review an article. In the meantime, keep an eye on the timeline's talk page over the next few days for my pre-FLC review. And please don't give up: many lists pass FLC on their second attempt, and there's no reason that this one shouldn't have every chance of being successful next time. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
January 2016
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Article Four of the United States Constitution may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- Heritage Foundation}}</ref> It would later be applied with regard to the formation of ] (from ] and ] (from Virginia).<ref>], "Lincoln
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited United States presidential visits to Australia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Darwin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
frey
here. Mlpearc (open channel) 20:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
James K Polk
Why is it "unnecessary" for readers to know how he pronounced his name? It is frequently pronounced incorrectly. Intelligent Mr Toad 2 (talk) 06:37, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited United States presidential visits to Japan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Shimoda (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:51, 23 March 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)
March 2016
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mainland may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- , as opposed to the approximately 2,670 named ] (many of which are part of the ] or ] chain.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
George W. Bush's international presidential trips
Hi, nice work on the List of international presidential trips made by George W. Bush page! For the introduction, I incorporated some elements from the introduction of Barack Obama's list onto Bush's list, particularly the addition of the number of visits he made per country, as well as the caption of the map. In the next couple of days, I plan to refine the details of each visit. First and foremost, I will add more details, similar to how it is presented in Obama's list. I will also add more sources and restate the sentences to more declarative ones, then I'll see what else I could do to the list. I'm just giving you a heads-up on what I plan to do. Cheers. PatTag2659, a hopeful aviator (talk) 11:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of international trips made by the President of the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Migration (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:32, 13 April 2016 (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)